Legal Opinion
Berry Brothers Corporation, and Cross-Appellee v. Paul L. Sigmon, Trading as Sigmon Hosiery Manufacturing Company, and Cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided May 6, 1963No. 8816PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SOBELOFF, Chief Judge.
The subject of this suit is a patent for a “sock package,” that is to say, a package for the display of men’s socks. The package consists of two socks, stretched one over the other on a stiff insert, so that the customer is presented with an appearance simulating the ankle and heel of a foot. The owner of the patent brought suit for alleged infringement. The defendant asserted invalidity of the patent and denied the alleged infringement. The District Court upheld the patent’s validity and found infringement within a narrow scope, as to certain products of the defendant…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Atlantic Works v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Hotchkiss v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Kenneth Reiner and Frank A. Klaus, Jr., D/B/A Kaynar Company and Kaynar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. I. Leon Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Oliver F. Marston v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Oliver F. Marston v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1965
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1983
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1973
- Lundy Electronics & Systems, Inc. v. Optical Recognition Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1973
- Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.