rizing the respondents to exercise them. . . . . Is it the case that the respondents in the appeal before your lordships fill the position of officers, agents or servants of the Crown, acting on behalf of and for the use of the Crown? Now, my lords, in order to answer that question you must turn to the contract itself. . . ." The person who is called the contractor is "a tradesman, and not the less a tradesman because he is engaged in works of a very large and extensive character; he is a tradesman manufacturing certain goods for the purpose of supplying them according to a certain standard which is laid before him as a condition on which the goods will be accepted." (L. R., 1 App. Cas. 641, 642, 644.)

Lord Penzance: "I think the true distinction in this case is between an authority or mandate to do a thing for a money reward, in the doing of which, whether the individual is a servant or only a contractor, he is all along acting as an agent, and a contract for the supply and acceptance, if approved, when completed, of an article to be made by the contractor, in the making of which the contractor, thongh working under inspection, is all along acting on his own lehalf and at his own risk.” (Ib. 654.)

(w) SYKES v. HOWARTH. [1879]

Fry, J. "Selling articles to persons to be used for the purpose of infringing a patent is not an infringement of the patent." (L. R., 12 Ch. D. 833.)

(x) VON HEYDEN v. NEUSTADT. C. A. [1880]

A person who makes, or procures to be made, abroad a product according to a patented process for sale in this country, and sells the product here, does indirectly make, use, and put in practice the patented invention. When a patent has been granted in England for a new process for producing more cheaply a chemical product previously known, the importation and sale of this product made abroad according to the patented process is an infringement of the patent. (14 Ch. D. 230.)

(y) SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DES MANUFACTURES DE GLACES v. TILGHMANS PATENT SAND BLAST COMPANY. C. A. [1883]

The defendants, who were the owners of patents in Belgium and England for making globes, by deed executed in Belgium, granted a license to the plaintiffs for the term of twenty years to use and employ the invention at their manufactory of Val St. Lambert and not elsewhere. The plaintiffs under the license manufactured the articles in Belgium and sold them in England-Held, that this was an infringement of the English patent and was not covered by the license. (25 Ch. D. 1.)

UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY . HENRY. [1884]

Where a workman of the defendant obtained two instruments, constructed in accordance with the specification, on loan from the

defendant, but at the time signed a memorandum that the defendant refused to sell them to him:-Held, that there was no intention to sell and no infringement. (Griff. p. 228; 2 O. R. 11.) (a) CARTSBURN COMPANY v. SHARPE. [1884]

In proceedings against the respondents for infringing a patent by selling cubes of sugar, manufactured by means of apparatus substantially the same as that described in the specification, it was proved that the cubes sold were manufactured in America by a machine very similar to the complainer's machine, but there was no evidence that the machine so used possessed any of the characteristic features by which the complainer's specification was distinguished from previous patents. It also appeared that the articles sold might have been produced by machinery which involved no infringement of the complainer's patent:-Held, that it did not lie on the respondents to prove that the articles were not manufactured according to the specified process, and that the complainers had failed to prove their case." (1 O. R. 181.)

(b) GWYNNE v. DRYSDALE. [1886]

In an action for infringement of a patent for arranging a pump case with the suction and discharge pipes to swivel so as to be set at any angle without interfering with the driving engine, it was proved that the defendants had sold three pump cases in which the pipes were capable of being moved round, but only to definite angles determined by bolt holes through which the bolts passed-Held, that the important points in the plaintiff's patent were that the rotation might be made without disengaging the screws, and that the screws might be clamped in any position without interfering with the engine, and consequently that there was no infringement. The defendants had also offered in answer to enquiries instigated by the plaintiffs to supply a swivelling pump:-Held, that as the plaintiff's patent did not embrace every arrangement of swivelling, the defendants must be presumed to have meant to supply something which was not an infringement. (2 O. R. 160.) On appeal to the Court of Sessions these findings were upheld. (3 0. R. 65.)

By working or making a new and material part of an Invention.

(c) HILL v. THOMPSON. [1818]

In a patent for a combination of processes altogether new, leading to one end, any use made of any of the ingredients singly, or any use made of such ingredients in partial combination, some of them being omitted, or any use of all or some of such ingredients in proportions essentially different from those specified, and yet producing a result equally beneficial with the result obtained by the proportions specified, will not constitute an infringement. (8 Taunt. 391; 2 B. Moo. 448; 1 Web. P. C. 242.)

(d) GILLET v. WILBEY. N. P. [1839]

Coltman, J., in summing up the case to the jury, said: "The plaintiffs must make out to your satisfaction that the whole of the improvements were new, and that some of them had been pirated. It is not necessary that they should use them all, but they must be shown to be all new, and if they are all new, and the defendant has infringed any one of them, it will be sufficient to support the action, and it is not necessary that he should have infringed them all." (9 Car. & P. 336.)

(e) MUNTZ v. VIVIAN AND WALKER. [1840]

In a suit to restrain infringement it appeared that the patentee claimed "The manufacture of metal plates of an alloy of copper and zinc in such proportions as will enable the manufacturer to roll the said alloy while at a red-heat into sheets fit for the sheathing of ships, and will be sufficiently ductile to dress close to the bottoms of such vessels, at the same time that it is more durable than copper, and oxidates sufficiently to keep the said bottoms clean." The defendants manufactured sheets of an alloy of copper and zinc within the proportions stated in the specification, but they rolled them cold:-Held, by Shadwell, V. C., that the rolling hot was a material feature and an interim injunction refused. (2 Webs. R. 87.)

(f) Newton v. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY. [1846]

Pollock, C.B:: "It was argued that the same criterion is to be applied to the question of infringement as to that of novelty. But that is not so. In order to ascertain the novelty, you take the entire invention, and if, in all its parts combined together, it answer the purpose by the introduction of any new matter, by any new combination, or by a new application, it is a novelty entitled to a patent. But, in considering the question of infringement, all that is to be looked at is, whether the defendant has pirated a part of that to which the patent applies; and if he has used that part, for the purposes for which the patentee adapted his invention, and for which he has taken out his patent, and the jury are of opinion that the difference is merely colourable, it is an infringement." (5 Exch. 334.) Alderson, B.: "If the invention consists of something new and a combination of that with what is old, then, if an individual takes for his own and uses that which is the new part of the patent, that is an infringement of it." (Ib. 335.)

(9) SELLERS v. DICKINSON. [1850]

Pollock, C.B.: "There may be an infringement by using so much of a combination as is material, and it would be a question for the jury whether that used was not substantially the same thing." (5 Exch. 324.) "I think it may be laid down as a general proposition (if a general proposition can be laid on

a subject applicable to such a variety of matters as patent lawmatters, indeed, incommensurable with each other, for the same doctrine which would apply to a medicine would scarcely apply to a new material or a new metal), that if a portion of a patent for a new arrangement of machinery is in itself new and useful, and another person, for the purpose of producing the same effect, uses that portion of the arrangement, and substitutes, for the other matters combined with it, another mechanical equivalent, that would be an infringement of the patent." (Ib. 326.) (h) THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. BRETT. [1851]

The breaches alleged in the declaration were that the defendant had used and counterfeited the said invention; the evidence was, that the defendant had used or counterfeited part only. The specification described nine several improvements:-Held, that the declaration, in speaking of the said invention, was to be understood as charging the using or counterfeiting of the said nine improvements, and that it was sufficiently proved by showing that one of them had been used. (10 C. B. 838; 15 Jur. 579; 20 L. J., C. P. 123.)

A. obtained a patent for an improvement in packing hydraulic and other machines, by means of a lining of soft metal, and thereby of rendering certain parts of such machines air and fluid tight. B. afterwards discovered that soft metal had the property of diminishing friction, and of preventing the evolution of heat when applied to the surfaces in contact of machines in rapid motion and subject to pressure, and he embodied the application of that discovery to machines in a patent:-Held, that the application of the soft metal by B. differed essentially from that of A., and that there was no infringement. (6 Exch. 859.)

(5) SMITH v. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. [1853]

Action for the infringement of a patent for an improved wheel. In the claim, the patentee stated that the new invention consisted in the circumstance that the centre boss, or nave, arms, and rim of the said wheel were wholly composed of wrought or malleable iron, "welded into one solid mass; in manner hereinbefore described." The defendants used a wheel, made by welding pieces of wrought iron so as to form a single compact piece of wrought iron; the mode of forming the nave was the same as that in the specification; the mode of forming the rim was different :-Held, that it appearing that the mode of forming the nave was a material, new, and useful part of the invention, the use of it by the defendant was an infringement of the patent. (2 Ell. & B. 69; 17 Jur. 1071.) Campbell, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "Where a patent is for a combination of two, three, or more old inventions, a user of any of them would not be an infringement of the patent; but, where there is an invention consisting of several

parts, the imitation or pirating of any part of the invention is an infringement of the patent." (2 Ell. & B. 76.)

(k) MOREWOOD v. TUPPER. [1855]

A patent was taken out for causing sheets of metal to be passed through molten zinc in such a way as to secure their complete immersion. This was effected by the sheets passing between rollers in contact with metal kept molten in a suitable pot. Another mode was by causing the sheets to be passed under a bar placed below the surface of molten metal, in combination with certain guides. Quære, whether a bar alone, when so placed for the purpose of ensuring complete immersion by passing sheets of metal under it, is the proper subject of a patent. Semble, per Parke, B., that if the patent is good for the bar alone, the use of the bar by the defendants, though for a purpose different from that of the plaintiff's, is an infringement. (3 C. L. Rep. 718.)

(1) BOVILL V. KEYWORTH. [1857]

A patent obtained for a new combination of a blast and an exhaust in connection with a mill, in which only the lower stone rotates, is infringed by the use of the same combination in connection with a mill in which the upper stone rotates. (7 Ell. & B. 725.) Campbell, C.J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, said: "Supposing the patent to be for a combination, consisting of several parts, for one process, we are of opinion that the defendants are liable in this action for having used a material part of the process, which was new, for the same purpose as that mentioned in the specification, although they did not at the same time use all the parts of the process as specified." (Ib. 737.)

(m) DE LA RUE v. DICKINSON. [1857]

The specification of a patent for an invention of "improvements in the manufacture of envelopes" described a machine in which a piece of paper was held upon a platform whilst the flaps of the envelope were folded, and concluded by claiming "the so arranging machinery that the flaps of envelopes may be folded thereby as herein described:"-Held, that a machine in which the flaps of an envelope were folded might be an infringement of the patent, although the envelope was not held down during the operation of folding.

The specification of a patent for an invention with a similar title described and claimed " the application of a gum or cement to the flaps of envelopes by apparatus acting in the manner of surfaceprinting:"-Held, that an apparatus for applying the gum might be an infringement, although it acted only in part in the manner of surface-printing according to the description contained in the specification. (7 Ell. & B. 738; 3 Jur., N. S., 841.)

(n) FINLAY v. ALLAN. [1857]

An inventor patented improvements on fire-grates, of which the principal feature was an overhanging door of novel construction, causing a double draught. In his specification he claimed as part