Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter Products, 7075.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 7075.,7075. |
| Citation | 243 F.2d 163 |
| Parties | COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Stalfort Pressure-Pak Corporation, John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., and Read Drug & Chemical Company, Inc., Appellants, v. CARTER PRODUCTS, Inc., and Joseph G. Spitzer and Marvin Small, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Mathias F. Correa, New York City (Thomas C. Mason, New York City, H. Vernon Eney, Baltimore, Md., Richard Russell Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, and Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for Colgate-Palmolive Co.
George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City (Piper & Marbury, Baltimore, Md., William D. Denson, Washington, D. C., Jerome G. Lee and Morris Kirschstein, New York City, on the brief), for Carter Products, Inc., Joseph G. Spitzer and Marvin Small.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
This is a motion for leave to move in the District Court to be relieved of the effect of a stipulation admitting the infringement of certain claims of a patent in suit. The case was before us on appeal in Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter Products, Inc., 4 Cir., 230 F.2d 855, and involved U. S. patent No. 2,655,480 relating to a pressurized shaving cream. In the District Court the defendant, Colgate-Palmolive Company, had admitted that certain of the products which it marketed infringed certain claims of the patent and the case was tried on the question of validity. The District Court, 130 F. Supp. 557, held the patent valid as to all of its claims, enjoined infringement and ordered an accounting as to damages for infringement of the claims as to which infringement had been admitted. We affirmed this decree. Colgate-Palmolive is now seeking to be relieved of its stipulation admitting infringement on the ground that this court in its decision has limited the effect of the claims as to which infringement was admitted by limiting the invention to which the claims relate.
The motion of Palmolive must be denied on the ground that there is no basis for the contention that this court intended to limit or did limit the scope of the invention or the claims of the patent in any way. On the contrary, this court placed upon the patent the same interpretation as was placed upon it by the District Court, quoted from the specification without suggesting any of the limitations now relied on by Palmolive, and nowhere intimated that the scope of the claims should be in any way limited. It is argued that in giving the history of the invention, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter Products v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
...557, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 4 Cir., 230 F.2d 855, certiorari denied 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed. 2d 59. See also 4 Cir., 243 F.2d 163 and D.C., 151 F.Supp. 427. Plaintiffs Spitzer and Small are the owners of U. S. Patent No. 2,655,480, issued to Spitzer, et al., for a la......
-
Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
...filed a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to be relieved of its stipulation admitting infringement. That motion was denied, 4 Cir., 243 F.2d 163, April 1957. An effort by Colgate to have this court clarify and amplify the decree by changing the accounting period for damages and profits......
-
Carter Products v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Civ. No. 6924.
...involve an interpretation of our decision and a holding that the scope of the claims of the patent had been limited by that decision." 4 Cir., 243 F.2d 163. There is considerable doubt, therefore, whether this court has power to consider the questions raised by Colgate's pending motion. How......
-
Tribble v. Bruin, 8046.
...6 Cir., 1940, 112 F.2d 387; 7 Moore's Federal Practice, pp. 339-340 (2nd ed.) and cases cited therein; cf. Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter Products, 4 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 163. The Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure, in its 1955 Report, proposed the addition to Rule 60(b) o......