Obviously, Florida industry is heavily involved in research and development. Research and development generates inventions. And inventions, if they are to be brought to fruition, require a healthy climate for technological innovation and good patent system. It is the incentives of the patent system which encourage individuals and companies to invest the time, the money, and the effort to bring about useful change in our lives. It was for these reasons that I introduced H.R. 6043, a companion bill to the bill introduced by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, his bill being H.R. 5924, entitled the Patent Reform Act of 1967, a bill designed to modernize the patent system to enable it to meet the need and challenges of today and tomorrow. As you know, the patent laws on the books today have not undergone fundamental change in more than a century. They have served us well in the past, but we must make sure they will continue to serve us well in the future. The Patent Reform Act of 1967 is based upon the recommendations of a Special Commission on the Patent System appointed by President Johnson in 1965. The Commission was given a mandate to (1) determine how well the present system meets our needs and national goals, (2) devise any possible improvement, and (3) recommend changes to strengthen the patent system. The Commission was widely representative of both public and private interests. There are a great many changes proposed in the draft legislation before this subcommittee. Without attempting to analyze all of these changes one by one, let me briefly summarize the objectives of my bill. First, we want to raise the quality and reliability of U.S. patents. Second, we want to reduce the time and expense of obtaining and litigating patents. This is most important to the small businessman and the independent inventor. Third, we want to speed up the public disclosure of new technology contained in patents. Finally, we wish to harmonize our own system with the practices of other nations, with the long-range goal of an international patent system. Under such a system, a single application could lead to patent protection in many countries. This would greatly benefit American business in the global markets of today. I therefore, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, strongly urge enactment of the Patent Reform Act of 1967, on behalf of inventors, businessmen, and the entire Nation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his concise and lucid statement in behalf of his bill. It is appropriate that the committee should be reminded of your own distinguished work in the other body in the same field. Mr. PEPPER. It is a very interesting field. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. It is well known, too, that you have an interest in international affairs, and I note that you have pointed out that the President's Commission indicated that one of the goals of revision would be to harmonize our own system with the practices of other nations. Would it be your hope that we might have a universal patent system in some future generation? Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I would answer unequivocally yes. If you look back over the span of human history, you see many frustrations and many defeats, but when you see it in perspective, you see how far the human race has come toward integrating into systems of wide range and scope. You take this country of our own here. At one time, of course, it was inhabited by a native citizenry scattered sparsely over this great continent. Then came this settlement in one part of the country and another under diverse laws and flags and allegiances, and finally we have lived into the fortunate day when all of this great continent is today under one government, one constitution, the protection of one law, and we have basically generally the same fundamental concepts of life. That has all come about as a part of the evolution of history. You take a place like the Soviet Union with all of its inadequacies that we hope some day will be overcome, and you will find I imagine at one time all the various peoples and all the tribes and all the developing nations and all the dictators, and so on, that at one time occupied that vast area from Europe to the Pacific Ocean. Well, it has many bad aspects about it, but at the same time it has, as a part of the evolution of human beings into systems, come to be one government, one country, basically one nation; and you see that evolutionary process going on in various geographical areas of the world when you look across the face of the earth and find in the western hemisphere the growing unity among nations of diverse background and a semblance of some sort of common objectives and common authority like OAS and you find other organizations. With all of its grievous imperfections, the United Nations is a place where 100 or more nations' representatives gather together at least, and we do have a world court, not yet very effective, but the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't very effective in the first few decades after its establishment. We do have one, and I think it is inevitable in the pressure of need and demand that eventually, unless it is foolish enough to blow itself apart and destroy itself, it is inevitable that the world will gravitate closer together and the systems will mesh a little more closely, and we will have a little more compatibility and share common obiectives for the good of all. So that is not at all hopeless to contemplate that within a reasonable length of time we will begin by treaty now and later on by law to have an international patent system where a citizen of any country will simply file his application for a patent before some sort of international tribunal, and once it is granted, he will be protected in most, at least, of the countries of the world. I think that is bound to come in the evolution of law and in the evolution of government. Mr. KASTENMEIER. I appreciate the gentleman's important observations. The gentleman from California. Mr. EDWARDS. I have no questions, but I would like to thank our colleague from Florida very much for a most enlightening statement. Mr. PEPPER. Thank you, very much. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman from Virginia. Mr. POFF. First by way of apology I was delayed and it was unavoidable, and I am particularly sorry because it is always an enjoyable experience to hear the gentleman. He is quite articulate and obviously earnest and sincere in all he says and does. I wish I might have enjoyed that experience this morning. Mr. PEPPER. Well, the gentleman knows that when I am speaking about things that have a legal significance, I naturally looked at him because he is regarded as one of our constitutional legal scholars in the body, and I am sure that he is one of those who envisions a law of the world some day or another. There will be a courthouse and sheriff and law some day or another to govern the disputes and wrongdoings of nations as of men. I wish it were here now. All of us pray that it were. Mr. POFF. I thank the gentleman for giving us his views. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions of the gentleman from Florida. I am pleased to know of his interest in the subject. He is aware of the fact that this committee has been spending now several months on this matter and that it is a complex one and in some areas, some aspects, controversial, and that it is likely that we will be considering this measure for quite some time to come. Mr. PEPPER. This is a distinguished subcommittee, and I know it will render distinguished service. This subcommittee did a splendid job some time ago in the copyright field, and I am glad to see you moving into this related parallel field of patents, and I know you will do a good job here. Thank you very much. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The Chair would now like to call our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, the Honorable Robert N. Giaimo, who, I understand, is accompanied by a distinguished member of the bar from his district who has important testimony for us. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I introduce Mr. Anthony DeLio, of New Haven, Conn. I thank the Chairman for his kind statements. I have been a member of the Connecticut bar for many years. Let me say at the outset that I have never been a member of the patent bar and certainly do not consider myself an expert in this field. However, as a Member of Congress, as an attorney, and as one who comes from Connecticut, which has a considerable historic and present-day interest concerning patentability and all of the factors which go into manufacturing, the development of patents and the securing of rights, I have developed an interest in this legislation. At the request of Mr. DeLio and the Connecticut Patent, Bar, I introduced a bill somewhat different from the bill which the distinguished chairman, Mr. Kastenmeier, has submitted. I hope that this able subcommittee, in its efforts to come forth with real progress in this field concerning the patent system of the United States, can work out and arrive at some solution which will benefit our Nation and make necessary reforms. It seems to me that the real problem which stares us in the face and which has stared my Committee on Appropriations in the face is the appropriations for the Patent Office which are increasing. There is a tremendous backlog and therefore, they do need much more money. The thing that concerns me, and many of the people of the Connecticut Patent Bar, in the administration bill or the chairman's bill is that we would basically change our system from one which deals with an examination type system and in some respects adopt the third party system which exists in some countries of Europe. This is an innovation, of course. It would make our system compatible with the British or German or Dutch systems, but it would raise serious questions. It does raise serious questions in my mind and in the minds of many people in Connecticut. First of all, our patent system as it exists has worked well for the United States. There is no question about it. When we look at the tremendous industrial capacity and the tremendous growth of the American economy, it has involved hundreds of thousands of patents over the years. It has involved also an ease with which these patents and protection of these rights could be obtained. It has meant that there was protection built in for many small inventors, for those who did not have the expensive capacities or the protective capacities to expend large sums of money in protecting their own rights. I think this should be very seriously considered. Before we change over to a system which does approximate some of these European systems, I think we should watch very carefully to make certain that we are not getting rid of something which has served us well throughout the years. The technology gap has certainly been in favor of the United States for many years. We read about the brain drain of people in other countries coming to our own Nation. All of this has been in our favor. Now when we get into a complicated type of system which involves third-party actions, which is going to involve tremendous amounts of litigation and which is going to be, in my opinion, a field day for patent attorneys, I wonder what is going to happen to the traditional types of business which my own State has exemplified for so many years the small producing types of industries that have been able to protect themselves with the present existing American patent system. These are some of the concerns which came to my mind and which I bring to your attention today. These are the concerns with which I would hope the committee would concern itself in its efforts to work out a progressive type bill which will resolve some of the existing problems that confront our Patent Office. I have Attorney Anthony V. DeLio with me and he can certainly go into this problem at much greater length. He is secretary and vice president of the Conneticut Patent Law Association and legislative chairman of the patent, trademark, and copyright section of the Connecticut Bar Association. He is a member of the Connecticut, District of Columbia, and Supreme Court bars. Mr. DeLio's qualifications include both academic and professional expertise in the patent field. During the past 14 years, he has worked with the patent law in various capacities, including advisory work with the Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Patents. Mr. DeLio has worked closely with me in developing H.R. 7454, which is before this committee today, and it is a great pleasure, gentlemen, to introduce Mr. DeLio to you. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Congressman Giaimo. May I say we do have your bill H.R. 7454 before us and will give it very careful attention during our deliberations. 90TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 7454 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 20, 1967 Mr. GIAIMO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL For the general revision of the Patent Laws, title 35 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 35 of the 2 3 United States Code, entitled "Patents", is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 4 "II. PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS. 100 "III. PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS.. 251 |