Frilette v. Kimberlin

Fifth Circuit

Frilette v. Kimberlin

367 F.2d 575, 151 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1966

Docket22980_1

StatusPublished

This text of 367 F.2d 575 (Frilette v. Kimberlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frilette v. Kimberlin, 367 F.2d 575, 151 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant made a motion to produce documents under 35 U.S.C.A. § 24 in a proceeding collateral to a contested interference case then pending in the United States Patent Office. The district court denied the motion and from its order, this appeal is taken. It is the conclusion of this Court that the subpoena is too broad, that a present need for the production of the documents sought is not adequately demonstrated. There was no abuse of the discretion vested in the district judge. The order is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellant made a motion to produce documents under 35 U.S.C.A. § 24 in a proceeding collateral to a contested interference case then pending in the United States Patent Office. The district court denied the motion and from its order, this appeal is taken. It is the conclusion of this Court that the subpoena is too broad, that a present need for the production of the documents sought is not adequately demonstrated. There was no abuse of the discretion vested in the district judge. The order is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F.2d 575, 151 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frilette-v-kimberlin-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack