Britt Tech Corporation v. L & A PRODUCTS, INC.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-63-Civ-176.,4-63-Civ-176. |
| Parties | BRITT TECH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. L & A PRODUCTS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and James F. Lindsay, an individual and Dennis F. Warta, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Kenneth D. Siegfried, Schroeder & Siegfried, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Joseph M. Finley, Doherty, Rumble & Butler, St. Paul, Minn., for defendants.
In this action for patent infringement, unfair competition, false marking in advertising and anti-trust violation, plaintiff moves for discovery and production of documents under Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P.
The issue for decision now is whether defendants should be required to produce and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy defendants' patent application, No. 245123 dated December 17, 1962 filed in the United States Patent Office, and whether defendants should be required to produce and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy cost comparison figures of defendants for its L & A washer products.
The court has read the pleadings, motions, affidavits and briefs of the parties, and concludes that plaintiff's motion in each respect should be granted.
Defendants are particularly concerned about maintaining the secrecy of the patent application, citing the statute, 35 U.S.C.A. § 122. But the statute enjoins only the patent office to maintain the confidence. Filed income tax returns are enveloped with more stringent secrecy provisions, but we have required their production. Karlsson v. Wolfson, 18 F.R.D. 474 (D.C.Minn.1956).
There are plausible arguments in support of defendants' position, but on balance plaintiff's arguments make more sense, and the logic of the cases cited by plaintiff is more persuasive.
Plaintiff's motions are granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...was entitled to discovery of defendants' patent application filed in the United States Patent Office. Britt Tech Corp. v. L & A Products, Inc., 223 F.Supp. 126 (D.Miss.1963). Nevertheless, this court again finds that the parties seeking discovery have not made a sufficiently clear showing t......
-
Irons v. Gottschalk
...Cir. 1963); Struthers Scientific & Int'l Corp. v. General Foods Corp., 45 F.R.D. 375, 381 (S.D.Texas 1968); Britt Tech. Corp. v. L. & A. Products, Inc., 223 F.Supp. 126 (D.Minn.1963); Cardox Corp. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., 23 F.R.D. 27, 31 (S.D.Ill.1958); Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v.......
-
L & A PRODUCTS, INC. v. Britt Tech Corporation
...part of the plaintiffs and their agents. A preliminary procedural aspect of the litigation is reported as Britt Tech Corp. v. L & A Products, Inc., 223 F.Supp. 126 (D. Minn.1963). Prior to trial the district court dismissed the antitrust count, the counterclaim, and the entire suit as to Wa......
-
Cordis Corp. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc.
...our own, have been confronting the issue of whether to order the disclosure of such materials. See, e.g., Britt Tech Corp. v. L & A Products, Inc., 223 F.Supp. 126 (D.Minn.1963); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Dictograph Products Co., 6 F.R.D. 597, 598 (D.Del.1947); National Transformer Corp. v. Fra......