Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Vitamin Technologists, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · No. 565-M · 1939-12-08 · Published

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. VITAMIN TECHNOLOGISTS, Inc.

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: McCormick (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T01:09Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a motion by the defendant for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted the motion in part, ordering the plaintiff to amend specific paragraphs, and denied the motion in part, holding that evidentiary matters should be pursued through discovery rather than pleadings.

What the court decided	The model
Motion for more definite statement granted in part “The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... for an order .requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement or a bill of particulars amplifying the complaint is granted as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a and lib of said motion.”	agree with court The court identified specific paragraphs that required amplification. While the order does not detail the deficiencies, granting a Rule 12(e) motion for specific, identified deficiencies is a standard exercise of discretion. The court also set a reasonable deadline (30 days).
Motion for more definite statement denied in part “The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) aforesaid, except as to matters covered by order made herein November 29, 1939, is denied as to all other demands other than those required to be answered as herein-above stated, without prejudice to any available procedure by defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”	agree with court The court correctly distinguished between ultimate facts required in a complaint and evidentiary matters. It cited Mumm v. Decker & Sons to support the proposition that a patent infringement complaint meeting statutory requirements should not be expanded to include evidentiary details, which are properly obtained via discovery. This aligns with the purpose of Rule 12(e) to prevent undue expansion of pleadings.

What the court decided

The model

Motion for more definite statement granted in part

“The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... for an order .requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement or a bill of particulars amplifying the complaint is granted as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a and lib of said motion.”

agree with court
The court identified specific paragraphs that required amplification. While the order does not detail the deficiencies, granting a Rule 12(e) motion for specific, identified deficiencies is a standard exercise of discretion. The court also set a reasonable deadline (30 days).

Motion for more definite statement denied in part

“The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) aforesaid, except as to matters covered by order made herein November 29, 1939, is denied as to all other demands other than those required to be answered as herein-above stated, without prejudice to any available procedure by defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

agree with court
The court correctly distinguished between ultimate facts required in a complaint and evidentiary matters. It cited Mumm v. Decker & Sons to support the proposition that a patent infringement complaint meeting statutory requirements should not be expanded to include evidentiary details, which are properly obtained via discovery. This aligns with the purpose of Rule 12(e) to prevent undue expansion of pleadings.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between ultimate facts and evidentiary matters in the context of a Rule 12(e) motion. It relies on binding Supreme Court precedent (Mumm) and contemporaneous district court cases to support its ruling. The reasoning is concise but directly addresses the legal standard for granting or denying a motion for a more definite statement.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — McCormick

McCORMICK, District Judge.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order .requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement or a bill of particulars amplifying the complaint is granted as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a and lib of said motion. Compliance with this order is required to be made by plaintiff within thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling. Exceptions allowed plaintiff.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) aforesaid, except as to matters covered by order made herein November 29, 1939, is denied as to all other demands other than those required to be answered as herein-above stated, without prejudice to any available procedure by defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Exceptions allowed defendant.

Information as to evidentiary matters which is obtainable on interrogatories, depositions and discovery under the Federal Rules of Procedure may not be obtained by a bill of particulars under Rule 12(e). Rule 12(e) should be applied in a manner to not unduly expand the pleadings, discovery being the proper method for obtaining information that falls outside the category of ultimate facts, and a complaint in a suit for infringement of patent which meets the requirements of Mumm v. Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed. 983, should not he expanded under Rule 12 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Dupont Textile Mills, Inc., D.C., 26 F. Supp. 236; Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Med-Vogue Corp., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 489; Fischback v. Solvay Process Co., D.C., 29 F. Supp. 583.