Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/881

AM. DIAMOND ROOK BOEING CO. V. SHBLDON. 873 �ent by illegally manufacturing articles, and immediately after its expiration to deluge the markets with the products of his piracy, and thus reaping the reward of his improbous labor in making it. The court would, I say, in such case restrain him from selling them, even after the expiration of the patent." This doctrine does net appear to have been denied or qnestioned afterwards, and waa frequently carried eut, in effect, by decr.eeing the destruction of infringing machines. Betts v. De Vitre, 34 Law Jour. Ch. 289 ; Need- ham V. Oxley, 11 Weekly Eep. 852. �In Curtis on Pat. § 436, it is laid down as clear law that, "if the patent bas expired, the account and the injunction will extend to ail the articles piratically made during the existence of the patent, though some of them may remain unsold." The illegality attaches to the things themselves. The person making thom bas no right to make them — no right to them when made ; he can import none, and none will accrue by their passing into time when they might be made. The ordinary injunction in such cases, in effect, restrains ail infringement of the patent, and is, in form, perpetuai. It would, doubtlesSj cover an illegal sale or use after the expira- tion of the patent. In this case the ordinary injunction bas been suspended in the course of proceedings to limit the term of the patent, and there is, therefore, no injunction now in force. �The motion for rehearing is denied, and the injunction re* stored as to machines made in infringement of the patent. ��� �