402 FEDERAL REPUllTJ^K. �continue his infringement for the brief interval prior to the termination of the patent. Can such considerations affect questions of right? Will a court permit a wrong to continue because the continuance of the wrong, if not stopped, will soon corne to an end? The fact that a plaintiff's monopoly is about to expire makes it the more important that he should enjoy it unmolested during its brief continuance. �There are some aspects of this case which incline the court, if it could be done within legal rules, to grant the motion made by the defendants ; but having determined on full hearing what are the respective rights of the parties, it discovers nothing in the af&davits to justify any suspension of the injunction ordered. An additional suggestion should be niade. If the defendants give bonds and pursue their infringements pending the account to be taken before the master, when will that accounting be closed, so that a final decree eau be entered? As the decree now stands, with a perpetuai injunction, the account relates to prior damages, etc. What shall be done with respect to the continually- recurring damages, if the injunction is suspended? If the mftster's report as to the past, dating from the interlocutory decree, what decree shall be finally entered as to damages accruing subsequently thereto? Where is a final decree to be «intered, so that an appeal eau be had, and what shall that decree include? Must there be a new accounting or- dered as to the continuing infringement ? This court must make a final decree at some time, and if it permits the infringe- ment to continue on bond given, when will it finally dispose of the case? So long as, under its permission, the infringe- ment continues, constantly-recurring damages are suffered to a"cumulate. �These suggestions are made to indicate the legal and prac- acal difficulties involved in the question, and to show that ander the rule heretofore stated the court should look care- fuUy to ail the facts and circumstances involved, before grant- ing a motion to suspend its interlocutory decree regarding the difference between royalties, licenses, and patent monopolies. �The views of this court with respect to preliminary injunc- ��� �
