AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

WAYNE-GOSSARD CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. MORETZ HOSIERY MILLS, INC., APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM:

In Wayne-Gossard Corporation v. Moretz Hosiery Mills, Inc., 539 F.2d 986 (4 Cir. 1976), we held that 35 U.S.C. § 252 applied to narrowed reissues and we remanded the case for further consideration as to whether Moretz could avail itself of the defense under § 252 and, if so, for application of the remedial provisions of § 252. The district court held that Moretz could invoke rights under § 252; and under that section it should compensate plaintiff for only its postreissue infringement at a royalty of twenty-five cents per dozen pairs of infringing foot socks with simple interest at six percent per annum, less the cost of conversion and reconversion of machinery, placed in operation to produce infringing socks, to adapt it to manufacture non-infringing foot socks. Moretz was enjoined from further infringement after October 23, 1979.

After consideration of the arguments, oral and written, and the pertinent portions of the record, we think that the district court correctly determined the matter on remand for the reasons sufficiently stated in its opinion. Wayne-Gossard Corporation v. Moretz Hosiery Mills, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 12 (W.D.N.C. 1976).

We also think that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moretz's motion under Rule 60(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., for the reason assigned by it.

AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WAYNE-GOSSARD CORP. v. MORETZ HOSIERY MILLS
(Mar 30, 1978)