An infringement may be committed by re pairing as well as making the invention, if it involves reconstruction either in whole or in part ; Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Preterre, 3 Bann. & A. 471, Fed. Cas. No. 5,596. To make a part with intent to use it, or to sell it to be used, in connection with the other parts of the invention, is infringe ment ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylon ite Co., 30 Fed. 437.
One who makes and sells one element of a patented combination with the intention and for the purpose of bringing about its use in such a combination, is guilty of in fringement ; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Brass Co., 80 Fed. 712, 26 C. C. A. 107 ; but not where the article made by the al leged infringer was not separately patented and was of a perishable nature (sheets of toilet paper); id. It has been held that re placing broken or worn-out parts is not nec essarily infringement ; Shickle, Harrison & Howard Iron Co. v. Car Coupler Co., 77 Fed. 739, 23 C. C. A. 433 ; Thomson-Houston Elec tric Co. v. Specialty Co., 75 Fed. 1009, 22 C. C. A. 1. See Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fast ener Co. v. Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. R. A. 728, citing many cases.
No act of making, use, or sale can be an infringement of a patented invention unless it is performed during the life of the patent ; Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 128 U. S. 605, 9 Sup. Ct. 168, 32 L. Ed. 538; Rein v. Clayton, 37 Fed. 354, 3 L. R. A. 78; see Kirk v. U. S., 163 U. S. 55, 16 Sup. Ct. 911, 41 L. Ed. 66. An infringement may be committed by the use, after the patent issues, of a de vice constructed before the creation of the monopoly, notwithstanding the good faith of its purchaser or maker and his belief that it will never be protected by a patent ; 3 Rob. Pat. § 907; Lyon v. Donaldson, 34 Fed. 789.
One who buys a patented article of manu facture from one authorized to sell it at the place where it is sold, becomes possessed of an absolute property in it, unrestricted in time or place; Keeler v. Folding Bed Co., 157 U. S. 659, 15 Sup. Ct. 738, 39 L. Ed. 848, whether a patentee may protect himself and his assignees by special contracts brought home to the purchasers was not decided in the case. A licensee of a patent for Michi
gan sold pipes to be laid in Connecticut, where he had no patent right ; it was held that he was not liable for infringement; Hobble v. Jennison, 149 U. S. 355, 13 Sup. Ct. 879, 37 L. Ed. 766 ; see Adams v. Burks, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 453, 21 L. Ed. 700.
A re-issue is not infringed by an act com mitted before the surrender of the original patent; 2 Rob. Pat. § 696. A re-issue with a broader claim is not infringed by the use of devices made before the original patent, though they are covered by the new claim; Ives v. Axle Co., 11 Fed. 510, 20 Blatchf. 333. A device which does not infringe the original cannot infringe the re-issue, if the scope of the original is measured by its de scription and not by its claims alone; Cam meyer v. Newton, 4 Bann. & A. 159, Fed. Cas. No. 2,344.
A patent for a combination of old elements is not infringed by using less than all the elements, where the two combinations are not the same in operation ; Faurot v. Hawes, 3 Fed. 456. A claim for a combination of three elements is not infringed by the use o_two only, though the third is useless, for the patentee must stand by his claim; Cool idge v. McCone, 1 Bann. & A. 78, Fed. Cas. No. 3,186. A combination is not infringed where one essential element is omitted and another is substituted accomplishing the same result in a different way; Schmidt v. Freese, 12 Fed. 563.
A patent for a manufacture is infringed in whatever way the article is made; Cellu loid Mfg. Co. v. American Zylonite Co., 30 Fed. 437; Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik v. Mfg. Co., 3 Bann. & A. 235, Fed. Cas. No. 721.
Where a product is patented as the result of a certain process it is infringed only when made by that process; Cochrane v. So da Fabrik, 111 U. S. 293, 4 Sup. Ct. 455, 28 L. Ed. 433.
A patent for a composition of matter is infringed if the new element does the same thing as the one for which it is substituted, though otherwise it is different ; Woodward v. Morrison, 5 Fish. 357, Fed. Cas. No. 18,008. A composition of matter is not infringed, if elements are substituted producing different results ; Smith v. Murray, 27 Fed. 69.