Micro Motion, Incorporated v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., Cross/appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a competitor who was not a party to patent owner’s infringement suit was entitled to quashing of subpoena seeking matters not relevant to infringement action
• explaining that “mere suspi- cion” of a product’s infringement does not support discov- ery into that subject matter
• explaining that discovery may not be had unless it is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action
• explaining that “mere suspicion” of a product’s infringement does not support discovery into thát subject matter
• explaining that discovery may not be had unless it is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action
• explaining that discovery is “designed to assist a party to prove a claim it reasonably believes to be viable without discovery, not to find out if it has any basis for a claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).