the use of it against his grantee; for the agreement implies necessarily the right to use it in any manner the grantee pleases, or to rent it to another. [Ibid.

47. The patentee of an invention, notwithstanding he had given the benefit of his invention to another, may recover for the violation of his patent, not having assigned away his whole title and interest in it, and no deed of assignment having been recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, [Patent Office.] Park v. Little et al., 3 Wash. C. C. R., 196.

48. If the defendant use a substantial part of the invention patented, although with some modifications of form or apparatus, that is a violation of the patent right. So, if the patent be of two machines, and each is a new invention, and the defendant use only one of the machines. [Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story, 273.

49. An objection to the validity of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine, namely, that he was not the first and original inventor thereof, is not sustained by the evidence offered in this case. [Woodworth v. Wilson, 4 Howard, 712.

50. Nor is the objection well founded, that the specifications accompanying the application for a patent are not sufficiently full and explicit, so as to enable a mechanic of ordinary skill to build a machine. [Ibid.

51. The restriction upon the assignee is only, that he shall use the machine within the specified

territory. There is none as to the sale of the product. [Stimpson v. Wilson, 4 Howard, 709.

52. A court will not set aside a verdict for alleged excessive damages, unless they are so large as to be palpably unreasonable. [Allen v. Blunt, C. C. Mass., Woodbury J., Nov. 1846.

53. Such a contract, connected with evidence from which the jury might legally infer, either that the machine to be employed in the manufacture of the patented article was owned wholly or in part by defendant, or that it was hired to defendant for the time specified: under colour of a sale of the articles to be manufactured with it, and with intent to invade the plaintiff's patent right, would amount to a breach of his right. [Keplinger v. De Young, 10 Wheat., 358.

54. The jury are to estimate the plaintiff's single damages, and the court will treble them in awarding the judgment. [Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gallis, 429; Gray and Osgood v. James, 1 Peters, C. C. R., 394.

55. The jury may, in a case for infringing a patent, give the plaintiff, as part of his actual damage, such expenses for counsel fees, &c., as have been necessarily incurred in vindicating the plaintiff's right by a suit, and which are not taxable in the bill of costs. [Boston Manuf. Co. v. Fiske et al., 2 Mason, 119.

56. A patent may be for a new combination of machines to produce certain effects, and this whether the machines constituting the combina

tion be new or not. But in such case, the patent, being on the combination only, it is no infringement of the patent to use any of the machines separately, if the whole combination be not used. [Barrett et al. v. Hall et al., 1 Mason, 447.

57. The sale of the materials of a patented machine by the sheriff, on an execution against the owner, is not such a sale as subjects the sheriff to an action for an infringement of the patented right, under the patent act of April 17, 1800, ch. 179. [Sawin et al. v. Guild, 1 Gallis, 485.

58. The statute declares it to be a good defence to an action for the infringement of the patent right, that the thing secured by the patent was not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use, or had been described in some public work, anterior to the supposed discovery of the patentee. [Kneass v. The Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. R., 106.

59. Any patent may be defeated by showing that the thing secured by the patent had been discovered and put into actual use prior to the discovery of the patentee, however limited the use or the knowledge of the prior discovery might have been. [Ibid.

60. In an action for the infringement of a patent right, the law gives to the plaintiff treble the actual damages sustained by him; and the rule is, to allow him treble the amount of the profits actually received by the defendant, in consequence

of his using the plaintiff's invention. [Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182.

61. The making of a patented machine, to be an offence within the purviews of the patent act, must be the making with intent to use for profit, and not for the mere purpose of philosophical experiment, or to ascertain the verity and exactness of the specification. [Sawin et al. v. Guild, 1 Gallis, 485; Whittemore v. Cutter, Ibid, 478.

62. The jury are to find the single damages, and the court is to treble them in awarding judgment. [Gray et al. v. James et al., 1 Peters, C. C. R., 394.

63. Where a court of equity, having heard a case on full proofs, is well satisfied of the originality of an invention, the regularity of a patent, and of the facts of infringement, it will not send the case to a jury to have its verdict, prior to granting a perpetual injunction. It will grant it at once, especially if the questions in the case, though questions of fact, are of that kind that a court can decide them on the testimony of men of science, as well as, or better than, a jury; and where a jury trial would be long, costly, or troublesome. [Goodyear v. Day, 2 Wallace, 283.

64. Thus, where the "description of the invention or discovery" described a process, and did not describe a product, but the description of "the manner and process" showed that the purpose and merit of the process was the production of a valuable "fabric," it was held, in a suit for infringing

the patent, by improperly using the product, to be no objection that the "description of the discovery or invention" described not it, but a process, the "description of the manner and process" showing that the purpose and merit of the process was the production of a "fabric." [Goodyear v. The Railroad, 2 Wallace, 356.

65. A jury cannot allow the plaintiff in a patent case, as part of his actual damages, any expenditure for counsel fees, or other charges, even though necessarily incurred to vindicate the rights given him by his patent, and though not taxable costs. [Stimpson v. The Railroad, 3 Wallace, (in press.)

IV. Proceedings and Pleadings in Actions for Violations of Patent Rights.

1. The defendant in the Circuit Court, in his plea, assigned the particular defect supposed to exist in the specification, and then proceeded to answer in the very words of the act, that it does not contain a written description of the plaintiffs' invention and improvement, and manner of using it, in such full, clear, and exact terms as to distinguish the same from all other things before known, so as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same. The plea alleged, in the words of the act, was, that the prerequisite to issuing a patent had not been complied with. The plaintiffs denied the facts alleged in the plea, and on this, issue was joined. At the trial, the counsel for the defendants, after the evidence was