AM. DIAMOND EOCK BOEING CO. V. EUT. MAEBLE 00. 355 �It is argued that because the other parts were made to be used with tiiose that infringed, in violation of the plaintiff's right, the plaintiff has the same right to have their contin- uance in use restrained as the continuance in use of the jnfringing parts. But this ground does not appear tenable. There is no forfeiture of other property as a penalty for infringement of a patent. Had there been a decree for the destruction of the machines to prevent further infringement, it would bave extended only to the infringing parts, if they could be destroyed without destroying the other parts; and these could be. Needham v. Oxley, 11 Weekly Eep. 852. The object of the injunction is merely to secure to the plain- tiff its exclusive right during the term of preventing the de fendants from taking any part of it out of the term and enjoy- ing it, and not to punish the defendants for any wrong done by them, either during the term* or after. �Motions denied. ���Amebican Diamond Eook Boeing Company v. The Eutland Marble Company. �{Circuit Court, D. Vermont. March 8, 1880.) �Patent— Bill to Enjoin Aftbb Expiration of Patbnt — What Must BB Alleoed. — A 13111 to enjoln the use of a patented devlce, after the expiration oi the patent, must allege that the defendant is using ma- chines manuf actured during the existence of the patent, or that the ora- tor fears such use. �In Equity. �Charles F. Blake, for orator. �Prout e Walker, for defendant. �Whbbleb, D. J. This cause has been heard upon a mo- tion for a preliminary injunction against infringement of a patent, the term of which has expired. The bill alleges that the defendants have, since the date of the patent, and since the title to it became vested in the orator, infi'inged by using machines embodying the patented invention, and that the orator fears the defendant will continue to use such machines ; ����
