Formulabs, Inc. v. Hartley Pen Co.

Good Law
318 F.2d 485·137 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 825·7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 505·1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5140
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 1963Nos. 17741, 17799, 18180California6,856 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jertberg, J.

Since the above-entitled causes are to be disposed of in one opinion, a review of certain past proceedings in the District Court and in this Court may conduce to a better understanding of the problems presented in the various causes and place each party in proper focus.

The matters before us in the above causes are rooted in an action instituted by Hartley Pen Company against E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company for damages for breach of warranty.

Hartley Pen Company is the petitioner in No. 17,799 and an appellee in No. 17,741 and No. 18,180. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company is a respondent in No. 17,799 and an appellee in No. 17,741 and No. 18,180. Formulabs, Incorporated, Clarence Schreur and Gordon S. Lacy, etc., are appellants in No. 17,741 and No. 18,180 and respondents in No. 17,799. The Honorable William C. Mathes, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is a respondent in No. 17,799.

For convenience, Hartley Pen Company will be referred to as “Hartley”, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company as “du Pont”, Formulabs, Incorporated as “Formulabs”, the Honorable William C. Mathes as “District Court”, and Formulabs, Incorporated,…

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.