University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
  
  
  

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