This is an action for alleged patent infringement. The court has jurisdiction under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 .

Plaintiff Miller holds letters patent No. 2,450,152 for a fruit picker’s crane; plaintiff FMC Corporation is the exclusive licensee. FMC has granted various other corporations the right to manufacture and sell the Miller device. These corporations pay FMC sums equivalent to three and one-half per cent of net sales price of the equipment. From this amount, one and one-half per cent is paid over to plaintiff Miller.

Defendant McCabe-Powers Body Company, Inc., a California corporation, manufactures aerial lifts which plaintiffs maintain infringe three claims of the Miller patent.

*1019 (The complaint designated McCabePowers Body Company, Inc., a Missouri -corporation, as a codefendant. The action has been dismissed as to that corporation; consequently the California corporation will be referred to as “defendant” herein.)

Defendant has brought a counterclaim in which it contends, inter alia, the Miller patent is invalid.

Plaintiffs’ device, designed to facilitate fruit picking and other orchard work, may be described succinctly as a mobile platform supporting a high seat ■or perch which may be moved in any of three directions.

Properties of the device are set out in detail in claims 2, 4, and 5 of the Miller patent, which claims defendant is alleged to have infringed:

Defendant’s machines likewise incorporate a mobile platform, a boom structure mounted on the platform, a workman’s perch carried on the boom, and controls for movement in any of three directions. The accused devices are of two types, one bearing an articulated boom, the other a telescoping boom. The equipment is intended for a variety of work aloft: maintenance of utility lines, tree trimming, and similar tasks.

A point-by-point comparison of defendant’s devices with the homologous parts of plaintiffs’ machine persuades the court the defendant’s articulated boom structure infringes claims 2, 4, and 5 of the Miller patent, and defendant’s telescoping boom devices infringe claim 2, provided the Miller patent is valid.

The court does not find persuasive the defendant’s contention its machines could not practicably be used for fruit picking. This is a matter of relative size of the machines, and possibly of placement of controls, which matters are not determinative; nor is infringement negatived by the fact the fruit picking crane embodies a two-part perch while defendant’s device carries a one-part basket.

The parties have devoted the major portion of their briefs and their evidence to the question of validity of the Miller patent. It is apodictie the very issuance of a patent gives rise to a presumption of validity.

The Miller patent has been found valid in litigation before the United States District Court for another district [Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. and Howard B. Miller v. Mobile Aerial Towers, Inc., Civil No. 1017, unreported case (N.D.Ind., Fort Wayne Div., Dec. 12, 1961)]. However, certain patents apparently not considered by that court have been brought into evidence here.

Patents relied upon by defendant as prior art range from a century-old fruit picking device hanging from a central pole, to a massive machine designed to *1020 unload ore from a ship and discharge it into railroad cars. The principal ones may be summarized briefly, as follows:

Robert E. Stilwell, chief development engineer of the John Bean division of FMC Corporation, testifying as an expert witness for plaintiffs, stated it would take more than engineering skill to combine the elements of, for example, the Brackett and the Irby patents, or the Brackett and the Clay patents, to produce the Miller device. With this view the court agrees.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated in the-case of The Troy Company v. Products-Research Company, 339 F.2d 364 (Dec. 14, 1964):

See also International Manufacturing Co. v. Landon, Inc., 336 F.2d 723, at p. 726 (9th Cir. 1964), wherein the Court said:

Under the rules above set forth the court finds the prior patents do not anticipate the Miller crane.

The court finds plaintiffs’ patent No. 2,450,152 is valid; defendant’s articulated boom devices infringe claims 2, 4, and 5 of that patent, and defendant’s *1021 telescoping boom devices infringe claim 2.

The court finds plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining defendant from further infringement.

The court further finds plaintiffs are entitled to damages equivalent to a reasonable royalty for use of the invention by the infringers ( 35 U.S.C. § 284 ). A reasonable royalty in this instance will be measured by the royalties which the various manufacturing firms have paid to plaintiffs for use of the Miller invention.

The court does not find this such an “exceptional ease” as to warrant the awarding of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 .

Counsel for plaintiffs shall prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in accordance herewith.