In the United States Circuit Court, April 5th, the suit of W. Smith agt. Calvin Witty was heard. The plaintiff charged that the defendant had infringed on his patents for improvements in velocipedes, and prayed that an injunction be granted. He averred that Philip W. McKenzie, of Jersey City, had obtained at various times three patents for improvements in velocipedes, and had sold the same to him; that he (Smith) had, at great trouble and expense, been manufacturing, for sale, velocipedes made under said patents, and that he will realize large gains therefrom if infringements are prevented; that various parties in different parts of the United States have acknowledged the validity of his (Smith's) claim to said patents, and have taken license thereunder, but that Witty has continually, m violation of his (Smith's) rights, made and sold velocipedes containing the improvements patented as above stated, and that he is still doing so. Smith further says that despite due notice on his part, Witty has refused to desist from infringing: these patents. He therefore prays that Witty may be enjoined from continuing these alleged infringements; that he maybe compelled to pay him (Smith) the profits he has acquired and the damages he (Smith) has sustained by such alleged infringements, and that Witty be compelled to make a discovery of how many velocipedes, infringing, as alleged, his (Smith's) patents he has made, and how many he has sold. A motion for Witty to show cause why the i-jurcss asked should not be obtained is to be argued, The McKenzie patent, under which Smith claims, is illustrated on page 181, and the patent of Lallement, owned by Witty on page 102, present volume, Scientific American.
This article was originally published with the title "Velocipede Patents" in Scientific American 20, 17, 267 (April 1869)