290 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �the case against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eaiiroad Company, finding the profits derived by that road from the use of the "Stevens" patent to have been $50 per car par year, the complainant fixed $25 per car per year as the license fee for ail railroads using it, and that some 18 railroads either compromised for past use or took licenses for future use sub- stantially on the basis of that fixed rate. �Although this rate may possibly be lesa than the def end- ant's actual gain, and is less by five dollars per car per year than the amount found by the master, in the absence of more exact means of Computing what that gain was, and as there is conflict of testimony on that subj'ect, we are disposed to accept the sum of $26 per car per year as the proper rate of profit to be decreed to the complainants in ail three of these cases, and we will sign a decree in each case for an amount calcnlated on that basis. As we allow these sums as profits, we do not allow interest. ���RowELL and another v. Lindsat and another. �[Circuit Court, E. D, Wiaconsin. , 1881.) �1. COMBINATION PATENT— iNFIIINaBMBNT. �A patent for a combination of known parts is not infringed by the use of any number of the parts less than the whole. Sharp V. Tifft, 2 Fed. Rbp. 697. �2. Bamb— Nbw Pabts— Infrikgement. �The use, in combination, of any of the new parts of a patented combination constitutes an infringement. �3. Samb — ScoPE OF Claim — New Parts. ^ �Where the invention claimed only describes the combination, the separate constituent parts of such combination should be regarded as old, or common and public. �4. Same— Old Part— New Usa. �The application of an old or well-known part or thing to a new use, in a patented combination, does not constitute such invention aa would render its appropriation an infringement. ��� �
