Cobb Temperature Regulator Co. v. Baird

• Decision Date: 24 July 1923
• Docket Number: B-89.
• Citation: 292 F. 909
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: COBB TEMPERATURE REGULATOR CO. et al. v. BAIRD et al.

292 F. 909

COBB TEMPERATURE REGULATOR CO. et al. v. BAIRD et al.

No. B-89.

United States District Court, S.D. California, Northern Division.

July 24, 1923

William L. Connor, of Los Angeles, Cal., for complainants.

Webster Webster & Blewett, of Stockton, Cal., for defendants.

JAMES District Judge.

Plaintiffs having complained on account of alleged infringement of their patent, defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the petition, including in the answer a denial that Cobb the assignor of plaintiffs, was the first and sole inventor or discoverer, and alleging affirmatively prior use and publication; also prior patent.

Defendants particularly alleged, among other matters, that the invention, process, and method described in the claims of thee plaintiffs' patent had been known to the public and made, sold, and used in the United States long prior to the invention of Cobb, and that they had been particularly known and used by one Atwood in October and November, 1911, and during the six years following, as well as by others whose names were unknown to the defendants.

Plaintiffs under equity rule 58 (198 F. xxxiv, 115 C.C.A. xxxiv) have propounded certain interrogatories to the defendants, and the defendants have taken exception thereto. It is contended that the interrogatories require the defendants to disclose matters relative to their defense, which requirement defendants assert, is not within the intent of rule 58. It must be admitted that the question presented has been decided in some of the District Courts agreeably to the contention of the defendants. On the other hand, many of the courts have united in conceiving it to be the purpose of the rule to produce a disclosure, in advance of the trial, of matters which will show the scope of a defendant's defense or a plaintiff's cause for complaint, to the end that the issues may be narrowed and the time of the court saved, as well as that expense of the trial may be reduced. Bronk v. Scott Co. (C.C.A. 7th Cir.) 211 F. 338, 128 C.C.A. 17; Batdorf et al. v. Sattley Coin H. Mach. Co. (D.C.) 238 F. 925.

In Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co. (D.C.) 235 F. 300, the court says:

'The tendency of the District Court of this district is to be liberal as to interrogatories, * * * that time and expense shall be saved to the litigants, and that, when the case comes on for trial, the case shall come down to the real issues as clearly and speedily as may be. In a case like this, the defendant should furnish plaintiff with a true specimen * * * alleged by plaintiff to infringe, and also state in accurate detail the process employed. * * * '

In Marquette Mfg. Co. v. Oglesby Coal Co. (D.C.) 247 F....