University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
  
  
  

collapse section1. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section2. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section3. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section4. 
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section5. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section6. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section7. 
  
  
  
  
collapse section8. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section9. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section10. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section11. 
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section12. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section13. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section14. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section15. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section16. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section17. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section18. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section19. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section20. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section21. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section22. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section23. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
"June Bug" First Infringement.
  
  
  
  
collapse section24. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section25. 
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section26. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
collapse section27. 
  
  
  
  
  
 28. 

"June Bug" First Infringement.

Referring to the matter of priority, the judge said:

"Indeed, no one interfered with the rights of the patentees by constructing machines similar to theirs until in July, 1908, when Curtiss exhibited a flying machine which he called the `June Bug.' He was immediately notified by the patentees that such machine with its movable surfaces at the tips of wings infringed the patent in suit, and he replied that he did not intend to publicly exhibit the machine for profit, but merely was engaged in exhibiting it for scientific purposes as a member of the Aerial Experiment Association. To this the patentees did not object. Subsequently, however, the machine, with supplementary planes placed midway between the upper and lower aeroplanes, was publicly exhibited by the defendant corporation and used by Curtiss in aerial flights for prizes and emoluments. It further appears that the defendants now threaten to continue such use for gain and profit, and to engage in the manufacture and sale of such infringing machines, thereby becoming an active rival of complainant in the business of constructing flying machines embodying the claims in suit, but such use of the infringing machines it is the duty of this court, on the papers presented, to enjoin.


210

"The requirements in patent causes for the issuance of an injunction pendente lite—the validity of the patent, general acquiescence by the public and infringement by the defendants—are so reasonably clear that I believe if not probable the complainant may succeed at final hearing, and therefore, status quo should be preserved and a preliminary injunction granted.

"So ordered."