From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROLL-DIE MOLD DECORATORS v. W.J. VOIT RUBBER

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 23, 1968
387 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

No. 21592.

December 21, 1967. Rehearing Denied February 23, 1968.

J. Herman Yount, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio (argued), of counsel: Yount, Raney, Flynn Tarolli, Cleveland, Ohio, Collins Mason, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Patrick James Kirby, Pasadena, Cal. (argued), Lorne J. Brown and Holmes, Ross, Woodson, Millard Ryburn, Pasadena, Cal., of counsel: Richard E. Lyon, Lyon Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS, District Judge.

Hon. Ray McNichols, United States District Judge, Boise, Idaho, sitting by designation.


We find no merit in appellants' objections relative to jurisdiction, venue, or stay of the trial date, pending Patent Office action. On each of those issues we affirm.

The summary judgment granted below is reversed, upon the ground the record discloses there exist genuine issues of material fact.

In view of this opinion, it is suggested that whatever district court judge tries the contested case, he should reconsider and re-examine the propriety and necessity of the continuation of preliminary injunctive relief.


Summaries of

ROLL-DIE MOLD DECORATORS v. W.J. VOIT RUBBER

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 23, 1968
387 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

ROLL-DIE MOLD DECORATORS v. W.J. VOIT RUBBER

Case Details

Full title:ROLL-DIE MOLD DECORATORS, INC., and R.C. Gutknecht, Appellants, v. W.J…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 23, 1968

Citations

387 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1968)

Citing Cases

Royal Industries v. St. Regis Paper Company

The integration issue could not be decided on summary judgment, because the relevant evidence was…