597 F.2d 32 (2nd Cir. 1979), 671, Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc.
|Docket Nº:||671, Docket 78-7558.|
|Citation:||597 F.2d 32|
|Party Name:||EUTECTIC CORPORATION, New Metals Corporation, and Metallizing Company of America, Inc., Appellants, v. METCO, INC., Appellee.|
|Case Date:||April 30, 1979|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Argued Feb. 21, 1979.
John M. Calimafde, Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil, Blaustein & Lieberman, New York City (Eugene J. Kalil and Marvin N. Gordon, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Arnold Sprung, Sprung, Felfe, Horn, Lynch & Kramer, New York City (Nathaniel D. Kramer, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, OAKES and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the denial of their Rule 60(b) motion. The motion sought relief from a judgment of the court of appeals in respect to patent infringement on the ground that "the technical assumptions made by this Court were serious mistakes and resulted in a determination which was demonstrably impossible." Brief for Appellants at 8-9 (footnote omitted). The District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward R. Neaher, Judge, denied the motion, the court holding that as a matter of law it was without jurisdiction to grant the motion. We affirm.
Appellants' motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 is yet another attempt to obtain reversal of a determination of this court on February 6, 1978, that certain claims of appellee's patents in suit were valid and that appellants had infringed the two patents relating to flame spray materials and technical process. Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 579 F.2d 1 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 192, 58 L.Ed.2d 177 (1978). On appeal from a decision of the district court holding the patents valid but not infringed, Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 418 F.Supp. 1186 (E.D.N.Y.1976), the court of appeals affirmed the finding of validity but reversed and remanded on the issue of noninfringement. In finding infringement, appellants contend, the court substituted an erroneous interpretation of a phase diagram describing the metallic compositions necessary to produce the patented reaction for the district court's interpretation of the document. Prior to the motion below, on March 10, 1978, appellants filed a petition for rehearing alleging that this court had erred in assuming a competence to interpret the technical document...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP