Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Gold Medal Hosiery Co.

Citation194 F. Supp. 538,129 USPQ 219
PartiesALAMANCE INDUSTRIES, INC., Kayser-Roth Corporation, and Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. GOLD MEDAL HOSIERY CO., Defendant.
Decision Date05 May 1961
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for plaintiffs.

William K. Kerr, New York City, for defendant, W. R. Hulbert, Boston, Mass., of counsel.

CASHIN, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for a summary judgment in its favor dismissing the action on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff, Kayser-Roth Corporation, is a New York corporation and the other two plaintiffs, Alamance Industries, Inc. and Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc., are North Carolina corporate subsidiaries of Kayser-Roth Corporation. Defendant, Gold Medal Hosiery Co., is a customer of Burlington Industries, Inc., of Greensboro, North Carolina (hereinafter called Burlington). The complaint charges defendant with infringement of plaintiffs' Bird et al. or "Supp Hose" Patent No. 2,841,971 by reason of defendant's sale of Burlington Support Stockings which it purchased from Burlington. Pursuant to an indemnity agreement Burlington is conducting and controlling the defense of this case.

On December 18, 1958, five hosiery companies, including Burlington, brought suit against the plaintiffs in the instant action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division, for a declaration that Patent No. 2,841,971 was invalid or not infringed. Defendants filed a counterclaim charging infringement of said patent by reason of the manufacture and sale of the Burlington Support Stocking. On February 10, 1961 the Greensboro Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion which held the patent invalid and unenforceable for misuse. Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Alamance Industries, Inc., D.C., 191 F. Supp. 652.

On July 23, 1959 the plaintiffs in this action filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Filene's, a Boston department store, for infringement of Patent No. 2,841,971 by reason of the sale by Filene's of all-nylon stretch hosiery having support characteristics, including "Ironware" manufactured by Manchester Hosiery Mills. Burlington and Manchester Hosiery Mills openly defended and controlled this suit although neither formally intervened as a party defendant. The Court found the patent invalid for lack of patentable novelty over the prior art and dismissed the action with prejudice and with costs and attorneys' fees to defendant. Alamance Industries, Inc., et al. v. Filene's, Civil Action No. 59-582-W.

On November 2, 1951 the plaintiffs in the instant action filed six additional infringement suits, including the instant one, based on the same patent. In one of these (Alamance Industries, Inc. et al. v. Allied Stores Corporation d/b/a The Bon Marche, Civil Action No. 4941) the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, entered summary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • In re Jet 1 Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 15 d2 Fevereiro d2 2005
    ...48 L.Ed. 276 (1903). That rule is applicable to holdings of patent invalidity as well. Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Gold Medal Hosiery Co., 194 F.Supp. 538, 540, 129 USPQ 219, 220 (S.D.N.Y.1961). SSIH Equipment S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 718 F.2d 365, 370, 218 USPQ 678, 683 (......
  • SSIH Equipment S.A. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 15 d5 Julho d5 1983
    ...Sec. 4433 (1981). That rule is applicable to holdings of patent invalidity as well. Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Gold Medal Hosiery Co., 194 F.Supp. 538, 540, 129 USPQ 219, 220 (S.D.N.Y.1961). See also, H. Kaye, R. Lupo, and S. Lipman, The Jurisdictional Paradigm Between the United States I......
  • Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 18 d4 Março d4 1999
    ...48 L.Ed. 276 (1903). That rule is applicable to holdings of patent invalidity as well. Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Gold Medal Hosiery Co., 194 F.Supp. 538, 540, 129 USPQ 219, 220 (S.D.N.Y.1961). SSIH Equipment S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 718 F.2d 365, 370, 218 USPQ 678, 683 (......
  • Avents Cropscience v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intern.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 20 d5 Junho d5 2003
    ...Procedure § 4433 (1981). That rule is applicable to holdings of patent invalidity as well. Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Gold Medal Hosiery Co., 194 F.Supp. 538, 540, 129 USPQ 219, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). 718 F.2d 365, 370 (Fed.Cir.1983) (additional citations omitted). The Supreme Court as well......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT