No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FRILETTE Et Al., Appellants,
v.
KIMBERLIN Et Al., Appellees
v.
KIMBERLIN Et Al., Appellees
22980_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 24, 1966.
Ellsworth H. Mosher, Washington, D. C. , Peter H. Beer, New Orleans, La., Raymond W. Barclay, New York, Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, New Orleans, La., for Frilette, and others. Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, Washington, D. C., of counsel., Calvin E. Hardin, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., for Kimberlin and others. Robert D. Fier, Douglas G. Brace, New York City, Harry McCall, Jr., New Orleans, La., Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Baton Rouge, La., of counsel.
Jones, Coleman, Ainsworth.
Published
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.