84 F.2d 577 (3rd Cir. 1936), 5842-5845, Janssen v. Belding-Corticelli

Docket Nº:5842-5845.
Citation:84 F.2d 577, 30 U.S.P.Q. 1
Party Name:JANSSEN v. BELDING-CORTICELLI, Limited, et al., and three other cases.
Case Date:June 09, 1936
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 577

84 F.2d 577 (3rd Cir. 1936)

30 U.S.P.Q. 1



BELDING-CORTICELLI, Limited, et al., and three other cases.

Nos. 5842-5845.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

June 9, 1936

Mowitz & Kohlhas, of Philadelphia, Pa., Greer & Johnson, of Media, Pa., and Roper & Caldwell, Wesley H. Caldwell, and Arno P. Mowitz, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Fraley & Paul, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Henry N. Paul, of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellees.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

This case is here on appeal from orders of the District Court directing the appellants to appear, testify, and produce certain documents and exhibits before Everett G. Rodebaugh Esquire, appointed commissioner by the Exchequer Court of Canada in its commission obtained in a suit by appellees, Belding-Corticelli, Ltd., et al. v. Charles A. Kaufman, 10 F.Supp. 991, to annul or impeach a Canadian patent issued to Kaufman. The appellants are not parties to this suit and have no interest whatever in it.

The commission did not give Mr. Rodebaugh, as commissioner, authority to require the production of documents or physical exhibits, nor was the commission accompanied by any interrogatories, nor did it ask the aid of the United States courts.

The appellees filed a petition in the District Court for an order directing the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum against many witnesses, including the appellants, none of whom were named in the commission, commanding them to appear before the commissioner and be examined viva voce and bring with them certain file wrappers, drawings, etc., writings pertaining to United States and Canadian patent

Page 578

applications in which appellants were interested as applicants or otherwise. These papers were alleged to be material and tended to corroborate statements which appellants had made in their affidavits in certain interference proceedings in the United States Patent Office.

In their petition the appellees alleged that they filed specifications of objection in the Canadian proceedings to the effect that the invention, contained in the patent issued to Kaufman in Canada, had prior thereto been disclosed by the appellants, Krenkel, Meinig, and Janssen, and that the appellants were in possession of evidence which would establish these facts. Thereupon, the subpoenas were issued...

To continue reading