Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that contention interrogatories were more appropriate than a 30(b)(6) deposition for discovery in a patent case
• holding that contention interrogatories were more appropriate than a 30(b)(6) deposition for discovery in a patent case
• “Whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or a Rule 33(c) contention interrogatory is more appropriate will be a case by case factual determination.”
• “ ‘The Court understands that preparing for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition can be burdensome. However, this is merely the result of ... the privilege of being able to use the corporate form to conduct business.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• BB & T Corp. v. United States
  M.D. North Carolina· 2006-02-02· cited 15×
• Rivera v. Kmart Corp.
  D. Puerto Rico· 2000-01-27· cited 9×
• Iris Corp. Berhad v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2008-10-23· cited 6×
• Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc.
  M.D. North Carolina· 2010-05-17· cited 6×
• Sigmund v. Starwood Urban Retail VI, LLC
  District of Columbia· 2006-06-06· cited 5×
• Savage, Turner, Pinson & Karsman & Kenneth E. Futch, P.C. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (In Re Douglas Asphalt Co.)
  S.D. Georgia· 2010-06-10· cited 1×

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 3,226×
• Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1995-04-05· cited 2,940×
• United States v. Taylor
  M.D. North Carolina· 1996-02-27· cited 167×
• Phoenix W. Wheeler, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 1993-12-06· cited 71×
• Protective National Insurance v. Commonwealth Insurance
  D. Nebraska· 1989-03-16· cited 38×
• McCormick-Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1991-04-19· cited 26×
• McCormick-Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1991-02-11· cited 26×
• Sparton Corp. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 1999-08-09· cited 16×
• Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1992-10-05· cited 15×
• Research Institute for Medicine & Chemistry, Inc. v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  W.D. Wisconsin· 1987-02-28· cited 14×
• Lance, Inc. v. Ginsburg
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1962-11-27· cited 10×
• Knieper v. United States
  Federal Claims· 1997-05-23· cited 5×
• De Graffenried v. United States
  Court of Claims· 1983-06-06· cited 4×
• CellNet Data Systems, Inc. v. Itron, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1998-03-27· cited 2×

Other cases named Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2000-03-09· cited 5×