Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (No. 2)

Citations

• 213 U.S. 325
• 29 S. Ct. 503
• 53 L. Ed. 816
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1877

Syllabus

<p>Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., ante, p. 301, followed . as to validity of Berliner patent for talking machines.</p> <p>There is a distinction between the article which a combination machine deals with and the constituent elements composing the combination; and while it may not be infringement to supply the unpatented article dealt with by the combination, it is infringement to make and supply an unpatented element, necessary for the operation of the combina-' tion. Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, distinguished. '</p> <p>The combination itself, regardless of whether any or all of the elements be old or new, is the invention and, in law, is as much a unit as a single or non-composite instrument and one using or contributing to its use without permission infringes it.</p> <p>Whether the elements of a combination patent are or are not patented is immaterial.</p> <p>Where an element of a combination becomes unfit by deterioration there is a destruction of the combination and a renewal of that element amounts to reconstruction.</p> <p>The right of substitution or resupply of elements of a combination extends only to repair and replacement made necessary by deterioration so as to preserve its fitness; license goes no further and does not extend to furnishing such elements to increase effectiveness or variety of the results of the combination.</p> <p>Unpatented elements of a patented combination may not be sold for use therewith .although they may legally be sold for use with other machines, and so held that it was infringement to sell record discs specially adapted therefor to the users of a patented talking machine although such discs were not patented and could lawfully be used in combination with other talking machines.</p> <p>150 Fed, Rep. 147; 154 Fed. Rep. 58, affirmed.</p>