And you further said with reference to the patent bar: If you learned gentlemen feel disposed to question the diligence of your legislators in considering your patent problems, lay it not to our lack of interest but rather to your own talented disagreement. We in the National Council of Patent Law Associations were familiar with the much too frequent inability of the patent bar to agree on various proposals to amend the patent laws. Although it may be an overstatement to refer to some of our disagreements as "talented disagreements," they were nevertheless disagreements and sometimes made it exceedingly difficult if not impossible for your committee to obtain the enactment of constructive patent legislation. Encouraged by the experience of the Trade-Mark Coordinating Committee which worked on the Lanham Act, the officers of National Council of Patent Law Associations, whose membership includes the 19 principal patent law associations in the country, called a meeting in Washington on February 8, 1950, for the purpose of forming a coordinating committee to coordinate the views of the patent law associations, other organizations, and individuals with respect to the proposed revision and amendment of the patent laws contained in your committee print. Nearly all of the member associations sent representatives to this first meeting, and those present voted unanimously to form the coordinating committee. A drafting committee, consisting of Giles S. Rich, of New York, and Paul A. Rose, of Washington, D. C., was appointed at the same meeting and instructed to prepare a revision and amendment of the patent laws based upon the committee print containing only such changes in existing laws as in the judgment of the drafting committee would meet with substantial approval of the patent profession. A number of industrial associations then joined in the work of the coordinating committee. The committee print was subjected to thorough study by all the associations represented, and numerous reports and suggestions were sent to the drafting committee. These reports and suggestions were studied by the drafting committee which prepared a careful redraft representing its best judgment of those provisions that would meet with general approval. Seven hundred and fifty copies of this redraft were printed by our committee and distributed on April 14, 1950, to the legislative committees of the represented associations. At a second meeting of the coordinating committee held on May 9 and 10, 1950, this redraft was carefully considered section by section, was reprinted with the changes adopted at this 2-day meeting, and was then submitted to your committee. With the assistance of this redraft, H. R. 9133 was prepared by your committee and introduced in the House on July 17, 1950. H. R. 9133 was widely distributed, our committee alone having distributed 4,000 copies to the patent profession and industry. H. R. 9133 was then subjected to close study by the legislative committees of our associations and by the associations themselves over a period of 6 months, which again submitted their reports to our drafting committee. The drafting committee not only studied these reports but also earlier bills to amend the patent law, such as the Wiley bill, S. 2518. In addition, it carefully examined the patent laws of other countries, including those of Great Britain and Canada. Based upon this thorough study, the drafting committee submitted proposals for changes in H. R. 9133 to a third meeting of the coordinating committee held on December 6 and 7, 1950. At this meeting H. R. 9133 was considered and voted upon section by section, and our resulting final draft was presented to your committee. During the early spring of this year, and I think this is of great significance, this draft was subjected to the most thorough and careful scrutiny at a 3-day meeting here in Washington of the patent section of the American Bar Association, the results of which were also reported to your committee. I may say a number of the most able patent lawyers in the country not only attended that meeting, but vigorously participated in it. As is well known to you, much additional work was then done by your law revision counsel, Mr. Zinn, and your counsel, Mr. Harris, which culminated in the introduction on April 18, 1951, of H. R. 3760, now under consideration H. R. 3760 was promptly distributed to the 5,428 patent lawyers and agents registered to practice before the Patent Office, to the industrial associations, and other interested persons. Since April 18, 1951, H. R. 3760 has been carefully studied by the legislative committees of the several associations on our committee preparatory to a fourth coordinating committee meeting held in Washington on May 22, 1951. Thirty persons representing 27 associations attended this meeting. H. R. 3760 was considered section by section, and the relatively few changes which were favored have been communicated to your committee. It should also be stated that all of the reports which have come to the coordinating committee or its drafting committee during the year and one-half of its existence have been made available to your committee through your committee's counsel. It is my understanding that one of the "talented disagreements" of the patent bar on legislative matters prompted your committee to initiate this important program of revising and codifying the patent laws. In so doing your committee rendered a most valuable service to our country. You have afforded those most interested in a sound patent system an opportunity to demonstrate that they also have talent for a large measure of agreement, when the matter involved is of major importance. It is our earnest hope and belief that the National Council of Patent Law Associations, to which our coordinating committee owes its origin and whose good offices it employs, will in future stand ready to support the work of your committee by coordinated effort like that employed in helping to develop the bill now under consideration. It can at least be said that in this instance we have worked effectively among ourselves and with your committee. Certainly no other piece of patent legislation has ever received such thorough consideration by as many qualified persons over such an extended period of time. There is submitted herewith a list of the approximate membership of the several patent-law associations which have been represented on our committee or have otherwise cooperated with it. The total membership of these associations is nearly 5,000. I do not have available the number or names of the companies which are members of the industrial associations which have worked with our committee. Of the total companies represented in these associations, the small companies far outnumber the larger ones. Several of our associations expect to present at these hearings their own reports and resolutions in support of H. R. 3760. However, I have been asked to present letters or resolutions from the other associations, copies of which are attached to my statement. These resolutions are 18 in number. I have an extra copy of them which I can hand up to the committee. I would like to submit them, and with the chairman's permission I would like quickly to refer to two or three of them so that the committee will see exactly the character of them, if I may have that permission. Mr. BRYSON. You may do that. Mr. ASHTON. I woud like first to call attention to the resolution of the Chicago Patent Law Association. The letter is addressed to me, and it is dated June 6, 1951. It states: At a board meeting of our association today we unanimously passed the following resolution: "Resolved, That H. R. 3760 with the changes recommended by the coordinating committee of the National Council of Patent Law Associations at its meeting on May 22, 1951, be approved as a whole." As you may know, the present bill H. R. 3760 and its predecessor H. R. 9133 have been the subject of very intensive study by the Patent Law Association of Chicago. We conducted a series of symposia last year under the direction of several subcommittees appointed to consider various sections of the bill, which symposia were well attended by members of our association. Copies of the reports of each subcommittee were printed and distributed to all members of the association, and the final reports of our legislative committee and the board of managers were also printed and distributed to all our members. Similar subcommittees were again appointed this year for consideration of H. R. 3760. The above resolution therefore may be considered as representing the results of a most careful study by our association. Now, that is a direct statement of the type of work which was conducted by every one of these associations. The particular resolutions which I wish to present are the resolution of the Boston Patent Law Association, in addition to the Chicago resolution which I just read, the resolution of the Cleveland Patent Law Association; the resolution of the Colorado Bar Association; the resolution of the Columbus Bar Association; the resolution of the Connecticut Patent Law Association; the resolution and letter of the Dayton Patent Law Association; the resolution of the Los Angeles Patent Law Association; the resolution of the Michigan Patent Law Association, of the Milwaukee Patent Law Association, and the Minnesota Patent Law Association. I do not know whether Mr. Levy plans to present the resolution of the New Jersey Patent Law Association. He apparently is not here, so I present, as I am authorized to do, the New Jersey Patent Law Association's resolution. It may be that Mr. Neave later will have the opportunity to and wish to present the resolution of the New York Patent Law Association. I might quickly refer to that at this time. It is a resolution passed by the board of governors of that association on May 24, 1951, and states: Resolved, That the president of the New York Patent Law Association, acting on behalf of its board of governors, is authorized to endorse and to testify in support of the Bryson bill, H. R. 3760; he is also similarly authorized to endorse and support the recommendations finally made by the coordinating committee as valuable suggestions for improvement in the bill which should be included in it if possible. I also have the resolutions of the Philadelphia Patent Law Association; of the Pittsburgh Patent Law Association; of the St. Louis patent section of its bar association, and the resolution of the San Francisco Patent Law Association and of the Toledo Patent Law Association, which I now offer to the committee. Mr. BRYSON. They will be included in the record.' (The matter referred to is as follows:) HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq., New York, N. Y. THE BOSTON PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, Boston, Mass., June 6, 1951. DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the executive committee of the Boston Patent Law Association on June 5, 1951, it was "Resolved, That the executive committee of the Boston Patent Law Association fully supports the passage of H. R. 3760, preferably with the proposed changes adopted at the meeting of the coordinating committee on May 22, 1951." Respectfully, M. R. JENNEY, Secretary. THE PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO, June 6, 1951. New York, N. Y. Mr. HENRY R. ASHTON, DEAR MR. ASHTON: At a board meeting of our association today we unanimously passed the following resolution: "Resolved, That H. R. 3760 with the changes recommended by the coordinating committee of National Council of Patent Law Associations at its meeting on May 22, 1951, be approved as a whole." As you may know, the present bill H. R. 3760 and its predecessor H. R. 9133 have been the subject of very intensive study by the Patent Law Association of Chicago. We conducted a series of symposia last year under the direction of several subcommittees appointed to consider various section of the bill, which symposia were well attended by members of our association. Copies of the reports of each subcommittee were printed and distributed to all members of the association, and the final reports of our legislative committee and the board of managers were also printed and distributed to all our members. Similar subcommittees were again appointed this year for consideration of H. R. 3760. The above resolution therefore may be considered as representing the results of a most careful study by our association. Yours very truly, CLARENCE F. POOLE, Representative of the Patent Law Association of Chicago. THE B. F. GOODRICH CO., Cleveland Patent Law Association. Approval of H. R. 3760. New York, N. Y. DEAR MR. ASHTON: At its annual meeting on May 29, 1951, the Cleveland Patent Law Association approved the following resolution: "Resolved, That the Patent Law Association approves in principle the recodification of the patent laws set forth in the bill H. R. 3760 now pending in the House of Representatives subject to such corrections as are being made by the coordinating committee of the Council of Patent Law Associations." I believe that this will give the assurance which you will wish to have for presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, while permitting correction of the various errors and ambiguities on which your committee has been working. Very truly yours, HAROLD S. MEYER, Chairman, Legislative Committee, the Cleveland Patent Law Association. AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, Washington, D. C. WHITEHEAD & VOGL, Denver, Colo., May 25, 1951. GENTLEMEN: The report of the Laws and Rules Committee on H. R. 3760, Eighty-second Congress was fully discussed by the patent section of the Colorado Bar Association at its meeting held on May 24, 1951, and the report was unanimously approved. I was instructed by the meeting to advise you to this effect. CARLE WHITEHEAD, Secretary, Patent Section, Colorado Bar Association. THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING CO., HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq., New York, N. Y. DEAR SIR: The patent committee of the Columbus Bar Association, by unanimous action, recommends the passage of H. R. 3760, with those changes approved by the coordinating committee of the National Council of Patent Law Associations. Very respectfully. HARKER H. HITTSON, Chairman, Patent Committee, Columbus Bar Association. RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT A FULL MEETING OF THE CONNECTICUT PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION ON MAY 24, 1951 Resolved, That the advisory committee of the coordinating committee on revision and amendment of the patent laws be empowered to represent the Connecticut Patent Law Association in behalf of the support of H. R. 3760 with such appropriate changes as in the discretion of said committee seem necessary in view of the activities of the coordinating committee and such opposition as may develop from unexpected and unanticipated sources as may be necessary to accomplish acceptance of this bill by Mr. Bryson's subcommittee. THE CONNECTICUT PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq., New York, N. Y. THE DAYTON PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, DEAR MR. ASHTON: At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Dayton Patent Law Association which was held on June 8, the recommendations of the coordinating committee with respect to proposed changes in H. R. 3760 were considered and approved in their entirety. In other words, our association has gone on record as favoring the support of H. R. 3760 at the coming hearings, whether or not all of the changes proposed by the coordinating committee are made, but with the understanding that every effort should be made to have these changes adopted. Yours very truly, EDWIN S. DYBVIG, Secretary. PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES, June 5, 1951. HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq., National Council of Patent Law Associations, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ASHTON: Our legislature committee has recommended, and I have been authorized by our board of governors to say, that: (1) The Patent Law Association of Los Angeles supports the passage of H. R. 3760 of the Eighty-second Congress; and 86988-51-ser. 9-3 |