Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 301,Docket 27356.,301 |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 283 |
| Parties | ARTVALE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUGBY FABRICS CORP., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Floyd H. Crews, of Darby & Darby, New York City (Emanuel R. Posnack, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Frederic P. Houston, of Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, New York City (James N. Buckner, of Brumbaugh, Free, Graves & Donohue, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before CLARK, KAUFMAN, and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by plaintiff Artvale, Inc., from the district court's refusal to hold defendant in contempt for alleged violation of a permanent injunction heretofore granted in plaintiff's patent infringement action against defendant. On October 26, 1959, these parties had consented to entry of a judgment in the action declaring that plaintiff was the owner of a valid patent for knitted fabric and that the defendant had infringed this patent. The brief decree then enjoined the defendant "from manufacturing, using or selling netting fabrics constructed specifically according to Figures 1, 2 and 4 of said patent." At the same time the parties entered into a separate agreement detailing the nature of their settlement. They did not, however, incorporate this agreement in the consent decree. Subsequently defendant began to produce the fabric in issue here. After hearing testimony and studying exhibits and affidavits, the trial court found that there were differences between defendant's and plaintiff's fabrics in sequence and type of stitches, in interrelationship of the two threads, and otherwise, and that these amounted to substantial differences in structure. Judge Palmieri therefore concluded that defendant's fabric was not "constructed specifically according to Figure 2" of the patent, and thus defendant had not violated the injunction. Finding the questions irrelevant to the issues presented by the motion for contempt, the judge did not decide whether (1) the fabric otherwise infringed plaintiff's patent, or (2) its manufacture might violate the separate agreement. The court's findings of fact were made after extensive testimony by knitting experts and examination of diagrams, photos, and affidavits; we cannot say they were clearly erroneous.
The sole material issue presented by this appeal, therefore, is plaintiff's contention that the district court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berger v. Heckler, 924
...not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree, see Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp., 303 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir.1962) (per curiam), and the explicit language of the decree is given great weight. See Vertex Distributing, Inc. v. Falcon ......
-
American Soc. of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc.
...[79 S.Ct. 944, 946, 3 L.Ed.2d 1054] (1959); Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir.1985); Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp., 303 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir.1962) (per curiam ); cf. Schurr v. Austin Galleries of Illinois, Inc., 719 F.2d 571, 577 (2d Cir.1983) (Van Graafeiland, J., conc......
-
Schlegel Mfg. Co. v. USM Corp.
...that 'A consent decree represents an agreement by the parties which the court cannot expand or contract,' Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp., 303 F.2d 283, 284 (2d Cir. 1962); see United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681--82, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971). I agree with the ......
-
420 223 United States v. Itt Continental Baking Company 8212 1290
...reasoning to approve a strict reading of a consent decree which was accompanied by a collateral agreement. Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp., 303 F.2d 283 (CA 2 1962). However, this reasoning is erroneous as applied to this case. Where parties in one agreement include both a consent orde......