286 F. 629 | E.D. Mich. | 1923
This cause is now before the court on motions by plaintiff and by defendant Collins for temporary injunctions against each other respectively, and upon interrogatories propounded by said defendant, under Equity Rule 58 (198 Red. xxxiv, 115 C. C. A. xxxiv), and objections filed thereto by plaintiff.
This suit, which is pending on bill of complaint, answer, and counterclaim, is based upon, and involves, the conflicting claims of the parties with respect to their rights and interests under two contracts between them concerning certain patents held by- the plaintiff. By said contracts said defendant acquired rights the nature and extent of which form the basis and subject-matter of this suit. The matters in dispute relate to conflicting claims as to the revocability, revocation, and breach of the contracts mentioned, the infringement of said patents, the rights of the parties to injunctions (permanent and temporary), damages, and other relief, and .the present legal status and relations of the parties, with respect to each other, arising out of said contracts. The cause has been referred to a master, with instructions to take and report the testimony and findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon; and depositions have been authorized to be taken for use on such reference.
The interrogatories and objections referred to have received careful consideration. There are three such objections. The first is to the effect that the interrogatories call for mere evidence rather than discovery of facts, without reviewing the details, which would serve no useful purpose, it is sufficient to state that I cannot agree with plaintiff in this connection, but am satisfied that the information requested is more than evidentiary and is material to the discovery of ultimate facts.
Another objection is based on the claim that certain specified interrogatories are improper because directed to a time subsequent to the-date of the alleged notice by plaintiff of revocation of the aforesaid
. One objection remains to be considered. It is based upon the contention by plaintiff that—
“Tbe interrogatories call for information to be used against tbe plaintiff in tbe furtherance of tbe claims of tbe defendants for a penalty sueb as treble damages.”
Part of the relief prayed in the counterclaim already mentioned consists of treble damages for alleged willful infringement by plaintiff of defendant Collins’ asserted rights as exclusive licensee under the patents referred to.
An order will be entered in accordance with the views herein expressed.