are we at liberty to manufacture it freely, without everybody claiming same as their invention, some other claim by another inventor, therefore, after the search of various attorneys in Washington here we are informed we are infringing, that others have $150,000 invested in this case, requiring a lawsuit to determine our rights; you do not know what is laying in wait for you in the Patent Office that might pop out at any minute and hold you up. Mr. GOODWIN. What do you mean by pop up, can there be a term of years after the search has been made by the Patent Office and these attorneys you have employed? Should not the inventions have been disclosed? Mr. CARLTON. These applications are kept secret. Mr. CARLTON. Yes, sir. I very boldly suggested down here at the last hearing I had the privilege of attending. The CHAIRMAN. And that is the thing you are objecting to, the applications are kept secret 5, 10, or 20 years? Mr. CARLTON. Yes, sir; exactly. We have on hand 83 applications of our own. We consider patents a businesslike proposition. A man is either an inventor or he isn't. When it comes to the point that various applications are filed and weird means are used to hide things and deprive some other person of his inventions, I think the patent laws were never designed to take care of that sort of thing, if you please. The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose of this bill, to take care of a situation like that. Mr. CARLTON. Yes, sir; I could not stay away because it involves our company to such a great degree. In these days we would go a long ways to save money for our corporation on invention. The thing we have before us to-day is so important it means some assurance to the manufacturer as to whether or not he can determine how to employ men. The CHAIRMAN. In speaking upon these bills, in other words, H. R. 10152, to empower the assignee of inventor to file divisional, continuation, renewal, or reissue application, and so forth, it seems to me like an ordinary proposition: Say, for instance, we purchased the invention of a man living in Chicago, and having so done he takes his money and leaves the country, moves to Europe for two years; during that time it is necessary to have his signature; we are the owners of the patent and we need his signature, he has lost all his rights, has he not? Is that not correct, Mr. Robertson? Mr. ROBERTSON. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, have the rights assigned for which you purchased the invention; pay for it, like a piece of real estate, in a number of years in the Patent Office. Mr. CARLTON. H. R. Bill 10153 by Mr. Sirovich merely brings American patents under the same regulation that has been common practice in foreign countries. Mr. Fenning gave you a very good example; except to take the time, I am not going to assure you 1918 patents were applied for. We went into the manufacture of a new wheel in 1921; they showed these wheels at the Chicago show in 1921. The inventor and his attorney visited the show and looked over our wheels and decided there were some things they could uncover there, they had drawings on application. This went on in '22, 23, '24, '25, and '26. The CHAIRMAN. Did they patent their claims? Mr. CARLTON. Patented and assigned. Divisional applications were filed and patents issued in 1926, and we found ourselves infringers of patents, with no defense left when we paid this one outfit $1,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. That never would have happened if these bills had been in existence at that time. Mr. CARLTON. Either the Sirovich bill H. R. 10153 or the Rich bill H. R. 10154, it never would have happened. H. R. 10157, the Dies bill, to expedite prosecution of patent applications pending more than three years, we favor. Now, gentlemen, I have talked with a large number of attorneys in regard to this matter. I think it is quite natural that an attorney objects to one or more bills before you because of the selfish interests of the client; he objects to them all, he said, "why be bothered with disturbing the patent law at this time?" I know that is the idea of the attorneys. I have been surprised to talk with a number of patent attorneys who have not even read these bills. In other words, I think when the Ford and what little motor companies I represent come before you, out of the bitterness of our past experience, we are manufacturers and only should be allowed to proceed in the way of investing money, and in this particularly we are especially attempting to take the leadership in making for better prosperity than has been enjoyed; and when the practices of the Patent Office are such that they actually throw blocks in front of the investment of capital, then these laws should be modified. We have heard so much of the poor inventor; the manufacturer will then feel anxious and free to invest in any of these patents, and without capital the invention is no avail, the inventor makes no money; his useful invention is no good to himself or anyone else. That is the reason I said this 20 and 17 year proposition in bill H. R. 10153 and H. R. 10157, which allows the commissioner to push a patent out of the office at the end of three years are emergency measures. I can tell you frankly in our particular case we are afraid to proceed with the expenditure of money, a fear that has been bred in us out of our past experience in the Patent Office. Now then speaking of H. R. 10154, permitting single signature in patent applications and validating joint patent for sole invention, I can only say it is considerable of a legal matter that attorneys are much more capable of speaking on than I and therefore I would leave H. R. 10154 for them to pass on. The CHAIRMAN. It might interest you to know that Senator Couzens approved that bill. Mr. CARLTON. I know that, and it is all right. H. R. 10153, to abolish the statute permitting renewal of patent applications, I believe is along the line of these others, and necessary and fair, and that is all we are here for and we try to be businesslike and therefore we advocate Mr. Goodwin's bill, H. R. 10155. H. R. 10156, to limit inventors to priority of two years before filing applications for patents, has met the opposition of a good many attorneys whom we employ regularly. They say many times an inventor is not able within the time of two years to get his invention perfected and into the office. All I can say is, representing corporations requiring eight or nine hundred patents I only know of one invention where it took three years; that was a very intricate machine, but at most we have lost only one that could not have been filed within the two years time. Mr. LANHAM. You say out of 900 cases you only found 1 that could not have been filed within the two years? Mr. CARLTON. The only one that could not have been filed within the 2-year time, and I will venture to say those others are delayed through sheer neglect on the part of the owners of the patent, or if not sheer neglect on the part of the owners, that it did not amount to anything. As far as H. R. 9488 is concerned, the expenditure of money at this time would be a very good thing in the interest of the public. One hundred thousand dollars would be money well spent in this Patent Office; not only would it give employment to many people who are in need of it, but it would save many hundreds of thousands of dollars in relieving the congestion and speeding up the work of the examiners in disposing of patents in the Patent Office over the question of a number of years. If anyone would like to ask me any questions I would be glad to answer them. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentlemen of the committee care to ask Mr. Carlton a question? Thank you very much, Mr. Carlton, for your illuminating remarks. The CHAIRMAN. We will now call upon Mr. Neagle. Will you please give your full name to the stenographer? STATEMENT OF PICKENS NEAGLE, SOLICITOR FOR THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. NEAGLE. My name is Pickens Neagle. The CHAIRMAN. What is your official position? Mr. NEAGLE. I am solicitor for the Navy Department. The Navy Department has little or no interest of an exclusive character in the general patent laws and improvement of them as affected by the bills before the committee and the department does not seek a hearing in connection with this because it is very pleasingly confident that the committee is handling and disposing of the matter to the very great satisfaction of the Navy Department. However, the bill, H. R. 10157, introduced by Congressman Dies, has in it provisions, two of which affect matters in which the Navy Department has exclusive interest. The CHAIRMAN. We might put in there "excepting anything that obtains to public domain as far as the Government is concerned," which would bring in your bill. I think to have the provisos in the bill, we have some things in them different from the ideas the Navy Department has had, I am afraid that will not cover the case. Mr. NEAGLE. I mean insert a new paragraph that the Navy Department means to make no preparation for war. The CHAIRMAN. We have that very ably introduced by the United States Government. I want that in the record. The Secretary of the Navy sent a letter to this committee requesting us to introduce a bill that would protect the Navy in the event of war and in the man power of that war, and which is the purpose, the principle of the bill, H. R. 7428. It is the one introduced by the Navy Department. That, it seems to me, would take care of it. I would like if you would be kind enough to collaborate with Commissioner Robertson and put in that paragraph that would exclude the Navy Department and eliminate your department altogether from that bill and send down what the Secretary of the Navy desires to have introduced in the bill, and which we will gladly do. Mr. NEAGLE. This that we have here is under the department patents board, and it has been considered very freely. If we may, that is, after collaborating with Mr. Robertson, we would like to embody in H. R. 10157 what may fill the case. The CHAIRMAN. That will be all right, and so that we can have it incorporated in one bill; that will give the Navy Department every protection it asks. Thank you, Mr. Neagle. The CHAIRMAN. I will now call upon Mr. Fenning. Mr. Fenning, will you please give your full name to the stenographer? STATEMENT OF KARL FENNING, PROFESSOR OF PATENT LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. FENNING. My name is Karl Fenning. I am professor of patent law at Georgetown University and practice patent law at Washington, D. C. Personally, I am in favor of all of the bills which have been considered here this morning. At your suggestion yesterday, I spent some time with Mr. L. W. Wallace, of the American Engineering Council; Charles Neave and William H. Davis, of the New York Patent Law Association; Jo. Baily Brown, of the American Bar Association; and the Commissioner of Patents in an endeavor to see if we could arrange the phraseology of some of the amendments that were suggested at the hearings yesterday, and I may say as a result of our meeting we felt it was unnecessary to make any change in H. R. 10155 introduced by Mr. Goodwin. The CHAIRMAN. No change to be made in Mr. Goodwin's bill? Mr. FENNING. No; and no change in Mr. Dies's 10157. With respect to Mr. Underwood's bill, H. R. 10152, relating to empowering assignee of inventor to file divisional, continuation, renewal, or reissue application, it seems desirable to make some designation of the broad character of the application which might be filed by an assignee. An application for patent frequently contains a disclosure of matter which is not the invention of the inventor of that broad application. For instance, take a man who is inventing a new set of casters for a chair leg; he may show how they work in connection with that chair leg. That is his invention and he files that, so that it is not reasonable to allow an assignee later on to file an application for the old part that was used for the chair leg, so we are suggesting in H. R. 10152, on page 2, line 2, after the word "disclosed" be in 117104-32- -6 serted the words " as a part of the invention." Again on page 2, at the end of line 10, after the word "patent" be inserted the words " as part of the invention," so that an assignee may file a divisional continuation and so forth. I will hand the secretary a marked copy. With respect to H. R. 10153 by Mr. Sirovich, to limit the life of a patent to a term commencing with the date of the application, we feel that it would be desirable to take away the limitation which is put upon the 2-year extension of the patent. In the proviso, in order to get anything more than 3 years, between 17 and 20 years, it was necessary for the case to have been an interference or an appeal, so that on the second page of that bill, lines 9, 10, and 11, we would cancel the words "in the case of applications which have been involved in interferences or in which appeals have been taken," so that the Commissioner of Patents may extend the time two years if and when he believes the application is not being held improperly in the Patent Office. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean when the case has gone to court? Mr. FENNING. No; the bill as drawn now provides: That for cause shown in the case of applications which have been involved in interferences or in which appeals have been taken- Then the Commissioner of Patents can not extend the time. Now, we are taking that out so the commissioner can extend the time, whether or not there has been an appeal; if the matter has gone to the court, then the court may extend the case, at no time more than 17 years. The CHAIRMAN. At no time more than 17 years? Mr. FENNING. At no time more than 17 years. In order to make it a little clearer, the extension for a patent shall not run more than two years. The CHAIRMAN. It shall not run more than two years? Mr. FENNING. No more than two years' extension. The term to be not more than 17 years. We are suggesting on page 2, line 16, the last five words be rewritten or canceled rather, "such term be more than," and substitute for it, "the term of any patent be more than," so the clause should read, "but in no case shall the term of any patent be more than 17 years." In other words, according to the modification, this amendment, in this bill it grants 20 years for the life of a patent from the time the application goes in. In no circumstances, will he ever get more than 17 years. The CHAIRMAN. In the event of litigation going on through the courts, the court has a right to add an additional two years? Mr. FENNING. The court can add an additional two years to that if there has been an appeal taken or in an interference case. If for some reason or other the case is held in the Patent Office through no fault of the applicant beyond the three years, the court has a right to grant that additional time. The CHAIRMAN. How could that take place? Mr. FENNING. We have just heard here of 900 cases in which only one would take more than two or three years to prepare before filing. The CHAIRMAN. Would interference come in? Mr. FENNING. No; this is after filing the application. |