INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS. 43 proved also that the bulk of defendant's fasteners must be consumed by those machines, or not be used at all, and that the defendant sold goods to these users through the mails, the court ordered an injunction to issue forbidding the defendant to sell to these users, directly or indirectly, conferring on the complainant the unhappy duty of furnishing a list of the users.^ This disposition of the case accords precisely with the ruling of the court in Willis v. McCuUen,^ where the defendant had license from the complainant patentee to use a patented process, and to sell materials for that process to persons who, like him, had license to use it. The defendant sold these materials, which were not patented, to unlicensed persons for use in the patented process, " knowing that the materials were purchased for this use, and intended that they should be so applied." The court found that " by these sales thus made, the respondent became a party to their use;" and in consequence held that "a decree must be entered against him as respects such sales for use in the process to unlicensed persons y The italicized portion of the above quotation indicates clearly the qualification which was to save the decree from the objection that it might interfere with the defendant in the prosecution of his lawful business. In Schneider v. Pountney ^ the defendant was sued for infringe- ment of a patent for a lamp-shade having a shade-holder of trans- parent material, and other specific mechanical features, the whole enabling an oil-lamp to be used without the ordinary chimney. The charge against the defendant was : ..." that he has manufactured and sold the transparent glass shade-holder which is one of the constituents of the complainant's combination, and the only one that is claimed to be novel and that characterizes Votti's inven- tion. As there is nothing in the reissue which claims this shade-holder, ex- cept in combination with the other elements, it is clear that the making and selling of it, standing alone, is not an infringement of any of the claims. See Saxe V. Hammond, i Ban. & Ard. 632." The complainant proved satisfactorily that there were " no other uses to which the shade-holder, made by the defendant and com- plained of by the complainant, can be applied, except in combina- tion with the other devices of the Votti patent." 1 Heaton Button Fastener Co. v. MacDonald et al., C. C. U. S. No. Dist. of N. Y. (not reported).
- 29 Fed. Rep. 641. " 21 Fed. Rep. 399.
