ooure, 8. D. New
:F:"01'k. November 11. 1886.)
Where a person makes and puts on the market an article which of necessity, and to the knowledge of.sQ.ch person, is to be ,used for the purpose of infringing a patent, such person will be held liable, under the doctrine of contributory infringement.' '
2. SAME-LIABILITY AS INFRINGER. But the doctrine that a party may be held liablell,s an infringex; solely because an article sold by hIm might be used by the purchaser as one element ofa patented combination would be too dangerous to be' upheld. 8. SAME"-PRoOFOF CONTRIBuTORY INFRINGEMENT. " In order to hold a party, liable under the doctrine of contributory infdnge· ment, there must be proofth.at what he did was for the purpose and with intent of aiding infringement. Ba'u v. Hammond, 1 Holmes, 456.
In Equity,. G. G. ']f'relinghuy8enandA. G. Farnham, fOr complainants. H. H. Morse andO.O. Leeds, for defendants·
J. are cbarged with infringement of letters patent No. 103,383t granted to James P. Snyder for an ment in, electro-magnetic burglar-alarm appal',atus. The invention ,"consists in, an arrangement for, setting,;in action automatically a which :will continue the the circ\lit nr)jtset inaction may be jmddenly stopped again l;>y the shutting of ,the, door or, :wiudo,w." The claim is as follows:
. , COXE t
"An alarm indicator, arranged for causing a secondary and independfl,nt cir(:qit at the by tbeaction of tbearmature lever with a disk or other device, and springs or other closing devices, and a secondary line of wire, I. H3, conitecting the battery and the mltgnet, all Bubstan.tiallyas 'specified." '
The evidence of infringement is confined to the sale by the defendants on' the seventeenth of Dec'emf>er, 1884t ofoM instrument known 'as all. "automatic drop»,' 8.;Q.d, admission by orie of the defendants that, othersHke it had been sold by his firm. ', It is conceded that this instrument maybe used, in connection with the otherapparatusidescribed in the patent, so as to constitute 'an infringel)lellt. ' It is also conceded that it is susceptible()fa fectly innocent use. is no proof that the, ever used it in' an infringi¥g,combination, There is, indeed, no4irect proof that it wa,s ever ao used by Certainly there isnothing to indicate that have soldan ",automatic knowing'that it was intended 'to be used to infringe the patent.'.· For aught that appears, every instrument sold by them may used in a perfectly legitimate manner. ', If the defendants were doing what the complainants charge,
by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.
namely, "making and putting on the market an article which, of necessity, to their knowledge. is to be used for the purpose of infringing the complainants' patent." there would be little difficulty in holding that the complainants' rights are invaded. But it is thought that the evidence will not warrant so broad an accusation. If held liable for selling an "automatic drop," it might with plausibility be urged that inculpated by the sale of a galvanic battery or an electric bell. for these are necessary adjuncts to the patented combination. The confplainants invoke the doctrine of oo'ntributory infringement, the cleare.flt" m!J.i\ltrationof is, perhaps. found in Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65. In that case the complainants had a patent fora cOlnbinatiot;twit4 a chimney. The'defendants manufacturedandsold the burner, leaving the purchaser to supply the chimney, without which the burner was useless. The burner could not be used without infringing the patent. All this the defendants knew. ·ItwllIg b:ecaus60f thieitlse and, this 'knowledge that they were held liable. See. alsoj:Richardson v. Noyes, 10 a.G. 501; Bowker v. Dows. ? & A. 518; Alabastine 00. v. Payne, 27 Fed. Rep. 559; Travers v. Beyer, 26 Fed. Rep. 450; Cotton-tie 00. v. Simmons. 106 U. 'C.' l' Sup. Ct. Rep. 52. In each of these cases the complainant succeeded because the article dealt inbythedefetidantwas only useful when combined as provided by' thepatentiri question,' and was sold by him intending that it should be 'put to this unlawfhl uS,e. A careful examination has (ailed to discover an authority holding a party liable as an infringer solely because an article sold by him might be used by the purchaser as one element of a patented combination. Such a doctrine would be be upheld, The case mostnearlyapproximating the one in hand is Saxe v. Hammond. 1 Holmes', 456. Judge SHEPLEY there says:
"As defendants Qnly make one element of the patented invention, in order to hold them guilty I must find proof connecting them with the infringement. Different parties may all infringe by respectively making or selling, each of them, one of the elements of a patented combination, provided those separate elements are made for the purpose, and with the intent, of being combined by, the party'having no right to combine, them. But the mere manufactureof a separate element of a such manuf,acture be proved to have been conducted for the purpose and with the in,tent of aiding infringement, is not in and of itself infringement. Of
'The this branch of the case is too vague and uncer:tain to q,ph old the qharge, of ipfringement. Where a necessary link absent in tlle 'ohain of. evidence. it ,cll.nnot be BupVlied by mere sus' '" , , " " The bill
NEWMAN v. WESTCOTT and another.
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. IlYIlJa, lv. D. Octob,er Term, 1886.)
EQIDTY-REYEDY AT LAW-LEGAL TITLE-ACTUAL POSSESSION-EJECTMENT.
Where a person holding the legal title to realty desires to assert that title, and to dispossess another party, the latter being in actual possession, there exists adeciuate legal remedy for the wrong, and the action must be at law.
ESTATE-ANNUAL VALUE-TAXES ON-ACCOUNTIN.G·
. , Where a person has\!elln dispossessed onand, question of the amou.nt of it!!, I1nnqal value, and of tb,e amount of taxes pald on it, can be settled In an actiOn at law, 'and no necessity exists for going into a eourt of equity.for an ,Rceouutingof the same.
Where a bill is brought to decide conflicting titles, and to remove clouds from the legal title claimed by complainant, and it appears from the llill that complliinant holds the'legal title, and is seeking to obtain possession of the realty, tlleproceeding, in s\l.bstance, is in the nature of ejectment, and the aeourt of equity, ul,> j1:!risdictio.n thereof, will sustain a deniul'rer filed by the defendant,and dIsmISS the bIll. '
, to recover certain real estate, and to have declared 'Void betta-in tax deMs, etc. Dismissed on demurrer filed by defend· ants.' facts are stated in tbe opinion. . Rickel « Bull, for complainant. l1atch, Oonnor <i; for defendants.
SIDRAS, J. In tbe billftled herein complainant avers that he is the .owner, and seized of the fee-simple title of. certain real estate situated in Sioux county, Iowa, and is entitled to the possession thereof; that the defendants claim some interest therein adverse to complainant, basing such claim upon certain tax deeds executed in 1872; that the defendant Westcott is in the actual possession of the property j that the tax deeds under which defendants claim are wholly void ,for various reaSODS set fortb in the bill; that the defendant Westcott has received the rents and profits of the land for the last three years, the same being of the valne of $450; that complainant is readya,nd willing to pay all legal taxes that may have been paid upon saJd premises by the defendants or their grantors, upon their paying and accounting to him for the rents and profits; and complainant prays that the title to the realty, and the right to possession ,thereof, be decreed to complainant; that the clouds created by the tax deeds be removed; that an accounting be httd between complainant and defendants of the taxes paid, and rents and profits received, ,and ju;dgment be rendered for tbe balance ther!lof. To this bill the Lindsey answers, averring that hebasnow no interest in realty, hlloving sold and conveyed sltid premises by warranty dee<i co,defenda.nt thirteenth day of June, 18.84. ,Thede. Jen4an.t lWeBtcott <lemurato tue on the ground that., the facts v.29F.no.2-4 .