Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. District Court

Good Law
73 F.2d 829·23 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 297·1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2829
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 1934No. 7083California977 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Petitioners applied to us for leave to file a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the respondents to sign and enter a decree on mandate proposed by petitioners in the eases of Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. I. F. Laucks, Inc., Nos. 7083 and 7084, from this court, reported in 68 F. (2d) 175 and 190, rather than another and different decree proposed by Laucks, Inc. An order to show cause issued, and a hearing has been had thereon.

A copy of each of the proposed decrees is attached to the petition. The decree proposed by petitioners would order the bill of complaint dismissed with prejudice; while that of Laucks, Inc., would limit the dismissal of the bill to “the cause of action set forth in the bill of complaint alleging'acts constituting contributory infringement prior to the date of the filing of the bill of complaint by the defendants The Chas. H. Lilly Co. and Wilmot H. Lilly, and each of them.”

We think a decree should be entered dismissing the bill as to the petitioners with prejudice and without any limitation whatsoever.

Our opinion was intended to dispose of all matters involved in the litigation between Lilly Company and W. H. Lilly and Laucks,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.