of a patent shall be for the term of 17 years and in lieu thereof making the following provision:

"The term of such patent shall begin with the issuance thereof and shall terminate at a date not more than 20 years from the date of filing by the applicant in the United States Patent Office of his earliest application disclosing the invention covered by any of the claims of said patent: Provided, That for cause shown the Commissioner of Patents, or any court which may have had jurisdiction of the application, may, in passing on the case before the patent issues, extend such period by adding time not to exceed 2 years to compensate for delays during pendency of the application not caused by application, but in no case shall the term of any patent be more than 17 years."

This bill corresponds with H. R. 11016 in the Seventy-second Congress (originally introduced as H. R. 10153), and was considered at the hearing before the House Committee on Patents on March 30 and 31, 1932.

Every law association represented at that hearing expressed its disapproval of the bill, as shown by the record. These were:

The American Patent Law Association, page 46, disapproved the bill by a vote of 255 to 75.

The Patent Section of the American Bar Association, page 34.
The New York Patent Law Association, page 13.

The Boston Patent Law Association, page 88.

The Philadelphia Patent Law Association, page 110.

The change in law proposed by the bill, H. R. 11016, would not affect the life of any patent issued on an original application within 3 years of its filing date, or a patent based on a divisional application issued within 3 years from the filing date of the original application; but in all cases where the issue date is more than 3 years later than the filing date of the earliest application disclosing the invention claimed, there would have to be an accounting for "delays during the pendency of the application not caused by the applicant" and a grant of time to compensate for such delays; otherwise the term of the patent would be shortened

to less than 17 years. The maximum compensating time is 2 years.

The proposed law would add an interminable amount of work to the office and endless controversy over the causes of delay and the days, weeks, months, or years to be added to the terms of patents by the commissioner or the court. The exact day of issue would have to be taken into consideration in making the time allowance. It would probably be necessary to have an accounting force and one or several low examiners to pass upon the thousands of petitions and complaints, and besides, whether justified or not, charges of favoritism in extending the terms of patents would undoubtedly be made.

Then again, the proposed law would add another game of chance to the inventor's lot the chance that the examiner and the appellate tribunals who have the inventor's case are reasonably up to date with their work, or 10 months to a year in arrears. Such long delays have occurred in the recent past and may occur in the future.

An original application for an important invention containing a generic claim and claims for three species might easily be delayed 3 years in prosecution before a primary examiner who is 9 to 10 months in arrears with his work, if responsive amendments were filed by the applicant within 3 months from previous office actions. Upon final rejection of the generic claims a year might be consumed on appeals to the Board and Court of Customs and Patent Appeals on the question of patentability, or 2 years if the applicant elected to proceed by suit in equity. If the court should decide that the generic claim is patentable, an interference consuming 2 or 3 years might follow. Then, if the applicant lost the generic claim in the interference, the examiner would be obliged to reject it and require division as to the species. Allowing 2 years for preparing and prosecuting the divisional applications, and adding the 2 years which the Commissioner may add to compensate for delays not caused by the applicant, the inventor, for all his trouble and expense, would receive three short term patents through no fault of his own.

The proposed law is unnecessary, unworkable and unjust to the inventor, and would add an enormous amount of work and expense to the administration of the Patent Office.

H. R. 5859: To provide protection by registration of designs for textiles and other materials (copyright).

The corresponding bill, S. 241, in the Seventy-third Congress was disapproved by the association vote of 170 to 50.

design copyright bill of this sort, whether it is limited to textile embroideries, or is extended to cover other material and parts th proponents of a design copyright have from time to time endeay this type of legislation.

fee

My protest is principally on the ground that copyright regis tory preliminary injunctions should not be provided witho to determine novelty and any bill that provides for a that. We all know that $3 will no more than cover copyright office, so that there will either be no search, of the taxpayer.

The present design patent law gives protection are involved and, with the Design Division of t practically up to date, the objection that the de law useless is no longer pertinent. In other wo design copyright law of this sort.

years!"

PATENT BILLS

17

A be for the term of 17 years and in lieu thereof making the fuum * K

atent Office of his earliest application diseinung tra
wing on the case before the patent wees vir die
he claims of said patent: Provided. That for on Va
A caused by application, but in to rame patie
exceed 2 years to compensate for denne drag
its, or any court which may have hard poturi (^ua đ
t more than 20 years from the date of flung to the Kobe Kana
uch patent shall begin with the lance theterd gedra.
•Kay considered at the beating alom “**
alt in the Severitypad C tro
31, 1932
Stearing expressed ita duayıma ba

M. disapproved the tow by e

I appreciate the courtesies that you have, that my present protest be accepted for th Respectfully yours,

The CHAIRMAN. Apparently t forgotten the testimony that w lutely excluded the automob silk design. It was only des other industry, and they ar bill, as presented, absolut Mr. NAULTY. I also h 1935, from the Ameri messenger, which is s (Mr. Naulty the the American Pat

The Hon. WILLY
Chairman

DEAR D' submit fo'

various the bill

The the r and

are not controversial organization, and I will be

up for consideration in executive atents. In the meantime, I want to Commissioner Coe, to thank you and Mr.

tey, your two assistant commissioners, for the eration you have given the Chairman of the Coments during your incumbency in office, for the fine work doing in cleaning up the applications that have been for a long time, and for the splendid way in which you have

Ju are

ending

Conducted your office. We are proud of you, and we sincerely hope you continue effectively, and that we can work to make your office one of the best that we have had in the history of the Patent Mr. CoE. Thank you.

Office.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank Commissioner Fenning, exCommissioner of Patents Robertson, Mr. Brown, the Register of Copyrights, who have cooperated with our Committee in the past. I also desire to thank Mr. De Wolf, Assistant Register of Copyrights, and Mr. Spencer, Assistant Commissioner of Patents.

The meeting stands adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. (Thereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.)

HEARINGS

H. R. 4523: Providing for the recording of patent pooling agreements and contracts with the Commissioner of Patents.

This bill has been disapproved by the Association by a vote of 272 to 27. S. 2524: Amending Sec. 112 of the United States Code, Annotated (title 28, subtitle "Civil Suits; where to be brought").

A referendum vote is now being taken on this bill and the result will be reported to your Committee.

H. R. 5384: To amend the act approved July 1, 1918, entitled "An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919." A referendum vote is now being taken on this bill and the result will be reported to your committee.

H. R. 173: Providing for Government paid services for attorneys for indigent inventors.

No vote has been taken by the association on this bill.
Respectfully submitted,

WM. S. HODGES, Chairman Committee on Laws and Rules.

Mr. NAULTY. Here are a series of letters, which, Mr. Chairman, I think might be incorporated as part of the record of these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us introduce it into the record. They are all along the same line.

Mr. NAULTY. All right.

(The letters referred to appear in the appendix and communications of the May 23 hearing.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further testimony that anyone is desirous of giving to the Committee? If not, Mr. Commissioner, I am going to ask you, in behalf of the Committee, to be kind enough to send me a letter in which you will state specifically the bills that meet with the approval of the Patent Office, that are not controversial in nature, but have the approval of your organization, and I will be glad to bring your letter and the bills up for consideration in executive session of the Committee on Patents. In the meantime, I want to take this opportunity, Commissioner Coe, to thank you and Mr. Spencer and Mr. Battey, your two assistant commissioners, for the magnificent cooperation you have given the Chairman of the Committee on Patents during your incumbency in office, for the fine work that you are doing in cleaning up the applications that have been pending for a long time, and for the splendid way in which you have conducted your office. We are proud of you, and we sincerely hope that you continue effectively, and that we can work to make your office one of the best that we have had in the history of the Patent Office.

Mr. CoE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank Commissioner Fenning, exCommissioner of Patents Robertson, Mr. Brown, the Register of Copyrights, who have cooperated with our Committee in the past. I also desire to thank Mr. De Wolf, Assistant Register of Copyrights, and Mr. Spencer, Assistant Commissioner of Patents.

The meeting stands adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. (Thereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.)

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON PATENTS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUBBELL PATENTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS