Chas. H. Lilly Co. v. I. F. Laucks, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Sawtelle, J.
This ease is similar to and was consolidated for trial with the ease of Lilly Co. et al. v. Laucks, Inc. (C. C. A.) 68 F.(2d) 175 , No. 7083, opinion filed herewith. Case No. 7083 will loe referred to hereinafter as the Johnson Patent Case. Both suits are between the same parties.
In this suit, as in the Johnson Patent Case, the bill of complaint named Kaseno Products Company and George F. Linquist as direct infringers of plaintiff-appellee’s patents, by reason of having manufactured and sold an adhesive embodying the products of appel-lee’s inventions, and alleged that the Chas. H. Lilly Company and Wilmot II, Lilly had eon-tributorily infringed the patents by reason of having “sold to said Kaseno Products Company, soya bean and/or vegetable protein material adapted and intended to be employed as a substantial part of the combination invented and patented, i. e., as a substantial part in the manufacture of said infringing adhesive of said Kaseno Products Company, said Chas. H. Lilly Company well knowing that said material was to be thus used to manufacture said infringing adhesive and fully intending that it should be so used.”