Hancock Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.

On March 12, 1935, the predecessor of the Universal Oil Products Company [hereinafter referred to as “Universal”] brought suit against the Hancock Oil Company [hereinafter referred to as “Hancock”] for an alleged infringement of three patents for the cracking of oil.

On March 31, Í936, Universal filed a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill of complaint alleging inter alia its succession to the original plaintiff and to the patents and all rights of action arising thereunder.

Hancock answered the complaint on July 30, 1936, denying infringement and setting up the usual defenses of invalidity of the plaintiff’s patent.

On December 15, 1936, Hancock filed a counterclaim and petition for declaratory relief.

Over two years later, on April 9, 1939, Hancock served notice on Universal that it would move the Court for permission to file an “Amended and Supplemental Answer to the Bill of Complaint, and to the Bill in the Nature of a Supplemental Bill of Complaint”, and to file an “Amendment to Counterclaim and Petition for Declaratory Relief”. The District Court denied both motions when made, except that it granted permission to “add to its [Hancock’s] answer as filed,…

(dissenting in part).

For reasons heretofore stated by me (Hancock Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 9 Cir., 115 F.2d 45, 48 ), the appeal from the order denying leave to file an amendment to the counterclaim, as well as from the order denying leave to file an amended and supplemental answer, should be dismissed.