Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

(2) The Patent Law Association of Los Angeles approves the changes approved by your coordinating committee at its meeting in Washington on May 22, 1951, but delegates full authority to your committee to negotiate those changes. Very truly yours,

LYNN L. STEELE.

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MILWAUKEE PATENT Law As SOCIATION, ADOPTED JUNE 8, 1951

Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Milwaukee Patent Law Association adopt the following policy with respect to the Bryson bill (H. R. 3760): That our association present a united front with the other patent organizations of America before the House Committee on the Judiciary, in endorsement of the Bryson bill, and that Henry R. Ashton, Esq., be authorized in his discretion, to so inform the House committee.

That advocacy of alternative legislation by our association, be for the present withheld, at least until the House develops its attitude toward the Bryson bill.

That, so long as the Bryson bill is treated as a mere "revisor's bill," largely noncontroversial, and thus appears likely to pass the House substantially in its present form, advocacy of alternative legislation continue to be withheld.

That, if the Bryson bill passes the House in substantially its present form, then advocacy of alternative legislation continue to be withheld, so long as final passage seems likely, but that we reserve the right to attempt to obtain the adoption by the Senate of such amendments as our legislative committee (subject to control by our board of directors) may deem necessary, however keeping such amendments to the smallest possible number.

That, if the Bryson bill be defeated in either the House or the Senate, or even merely becomes a controversial measure with serious opposition in either the House or the Senate, then we reserve the right to work for the introduction of alternative legislation.

And that the secretary be instructed to mail a copy of his resolution at once to Mr. Ashton.

THE MINNESOTA PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,

June 7, 1951.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PATENT LAW ASSOCIATIONS,

Washington, D. C'.

(Attention of Mr. Francis D. Stephens, chairman of committee on patent legislation.)

DEAR MR. STEPHENS: At the annual meeting of the Minnesota Patent Law Association on May 17, 1951, at which time the writer took over as president for the coming year, the resolution was passed approving H. R. 3760, now being considered by Congress.

In picking up the loose ends, the writer notes that no notification of this was forwarded to you; hence, this letter.

Yours very truly,

THE MINNESOTA PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,
Ralph F. Merchant, President.

RESOLUTION OF THE NEW JERSEY PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, NEWARK, N. J., JUNE 1, 1951

Resolved, That the New Jersey Patent Law Association approves in principle the provisions of H. R. 3760 and the various sections therein, and, moreover, approves and adopts as its own views such modifications in H. R. 3760 as may be presented by the coordinating committee on revision and amendment of the patent laws of the National Council of Patent Law Associations; and be it

Resolved further, That spokesmen for said coordinating committee, in expressing the views of the coordinating committee at hearings with respect to said bill, are specifically recognized as setting forth the official views of the New Jersey Patent Law Association; and be it

Resolved further, That the chairman of the legislation committee of the New Jersey Patent Law Association is hereby authorized to present this resolution in behalf of the New Jersey Patent Law Association.

MAURICE W. LEVY,

Chairman of the Legislation Committee, New Jersey Patent Law Association.

THE PHILADELPHIA PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,
Philadelphia, Pa., June 8, 1951.

HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq.
National Council of Patent Law Associations,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. ASHTON: H. R. 3760, together with the amendments proposed by the coordinating committee in its most recent session, has been considered in detail by the legislative committee of this association, and in general by the board of governnors. All members of both groups approve the bill as a whole. Eleven members of the legislative committee and five members of the board of governors approve it without qualification. The three remaining members of the legislative committee and the two remaining members of the board of governors, though approving the measure as a whole, express some reservation as to one or more specific points.

There has not been sufficient time to procure a vote from the entire membership of this association.

The only sections queried specifically were: As to substantive provision, sections 203, 231, and 248. As to matters of terminology, sections 100, 102, 116, and 122. Mr. Klein, chairman of the legislative committee, is writing to you with reference to these sections.

Yours very truly,

ARTHUR SYNNESTVEDT, President.

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS Co.,

Pittsburgh, Pa., June 4, 1951.

HENRY R. ASHTON, Esq.,

Chairman of Coordinating Committee,

National Council of Patent Laws Associations, New York, N. Y.

DEAR MR. ASHTON: The Patent Law Association of Pittsburgh cannot as a body act in time to pass a resolution supporting the passage of H. R. 3760.

Under the circumstances, I have polled the members of the board of managers of the association, and they have authorized me to write you this letter for use at the hearings before the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee as showing that the governing body of this association supports the passage of H. R. 3760. Very truly yours,

OSCAR L. SPENCER,

President, the Patent Law Association of Pittsburgh.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PATENT LAW ASSOCIATIONS,

ST. LOUIS, Mo., June 12, 1951. Washington, D. C.:

Patent section of St. Louis Bar Association approves H. R. 3760 of Eightysecond Congress but expressed strong sentiment for more direct and stronger definition of invention and suggest restudy of paragraph B of section 231 to more accurately define tortuous inducement of infringement.

NEAL E. WILLIS, Secretary, Monsanto Chemical Co.

PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO,
June 8, 1951.

Mr. HENRY R. ASHTON,

Chairman, Coordinating Committee on Revision and Amendment

of the Patent Laws, New York City, N. Y.

DEAR. MR. ASHTON: The Patent Law Association of San Francisco, acting through its board of governors, endorses H. R. 3760 and urges approval and

early enactment thereof. It is hoped that the changes in H. R. 3760 suggested by the Coordinating Committee on Revision and Amendment of the Patent Laws will be incorporated in the bill.

Very truly yours,

PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO,
STEPHEN S. TOWNSEND, President.

RESOLUTION OF THE TOLEDO PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION

Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the Toledo Patent Law Association approves the passage of H. R. 3760 as amended by the suggestions made and presented by the coordinating committee of the National Council of Patent Law Associations; and that the secretary be, and hereby is, directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the National Council of Patent Law Associations. Certified to be a true copy of a resolution adopted by the executive committee of the Toledo Patent Law Association at a meeting held Thursday, May 31, 1951. HENRY K. LEONARD, Secretary.

Mr. BRYSON. Incidentally, those resolutions to which you have made reference apparently represent the larger associations in the country. Mr. ASHTON. The ones I have presented at the moment represent at least two-thirds or more of all the patent law associations in the country, including a number of the smaller associations, as you will see from the list of membership at the back of my statement.

Mr. BRYSON. Yes.

Mr. ASHTON. There were included in our group all of the patent law associations in the country. In fact they all worked with us, so they include all of the large ones, and also all of the small ones.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the chairman, the other members of this committee and the committee's counsel for the opportunity we have had to assist in this important work. It also seems appropriate to record here our thanks to the officers and members of the legislative committees of our associations and other individuals who have worked so diligently, and finally to thank Messrs. Federico, Rich, and Rose without whose untiring and invaluable help the work of the coordinating committee could not have been carried on.

At the last meeting of the coordinating committee on May 22, 1951, an advisory committee was appointed to act for the coordinating committee at these hearings. Several members of this advisory committee, in addition to myself, are present. They will be glad to testify and to answer questions on any part of the bill if your committee so desires.

I thank you.

Mr. ROGERS. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BRYSON. Congressman Rogers desires to propound a question. Mr. ASHTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. You made a statement, I think, on page 3 of your statement

Mr. ASHTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. In which you said

only such changes in existing law as in the judgment of the drafting committee would meet with substantial approval of the patent profession.

Of course, we would infer from that that it was not unanimous as to all of the terms and conditions of this latest recodified law; that is correct, is it not?

Mr. ASHTON. You see, Mr. Rogers, at the time that resolution was passed by our coordinating committee at the very first meeting we

had before it your committee print which contained a number of new proposals in the law as well as codifications, and there were a number of proposals in that which everyone recognized at once would be controversial.

This group organized itself, therefore, on the basis of having a redraft made on which we thought we could get substantial agreement, and this committee included industrial associations, and so forth, and the drafting committee worked up and brought into the committee a revision leaving out the controversial matters, and which, in its judgment it felt would meet with general approval, but you must bear in mind that the whole project is primarily codification. Mr. ROGERS. We appreciate the good work that the committee has done and, of course, we are trying to arrive at what may have been controversial matters therein.

Mr. ASHTON. Are you inquiring as to within the committee itself, on various phases of the bill?

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you this question: I understand the present bill, H. R. 3760, is one that has been more or less agreed upon among members of the Patent Attorneys' Associations, subject to some of the recommendations in May.

Mr. ASHTON. The coordinating committee met May 22 and adopted a list of suggestions, and they were suggestions to your committee. They were adopted by most of the associations as changes which they would like to see made in the bill. Most of them feel that the bill as a whole is a desirable bill, and they hope that these changes which are clarifying and not controversial matters in any way should be made.

It is not at all strange that there should be some suggestions for changes which would develop. Also the bill was prepared by your committee and changed in a number of respects so that it had to be thoroughly considered again.

Mr. ROGERS. Then do I understand that concerns the proposed clarifying amendments you have filed here with the clerk?

Mr. ASHTON. That is so.

Mr. ROGERS. That you have filed with the clerk of the committee? Mr. ASHTON. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. And as a result they will be discussed by the various members who appear here, and pointed out from time to time by those representing the committee that has gone through all of this work?

Mr. ASHTON. Well, they can be discussed by me, for example, or someone else. They are of such a character that we have not been thinking of them as requiring much discussion, because they are pretty apparent on their face.

Mr. ROGERS. That is, they are clarifying amendments?

Mr. ASHTON. That is right.

I might add that we are continuing this policy which we have had throughout of transmitting all of the suggestions that come to us to your committee counsel. I should add in that connection that suggestions of improvement in language and some substantive suggestions that should not meet with any opposition at all have been proposed, and that material is being sent to your counsel for this committee as soon as it is received by us.

Mr. ROGERS. Do I understand also that your committee has received suggestions from others than the members of the Patent Law Associations concerning the provisions of this bill?

Mr. ASHTON. Yes, sir. I should say we have all of these industrial associations as well in our organizations, and, of course, they represent industry, as I have stated, and these associations, of course, around the country have received suggestions from a very large cross section of the country.

The way the association worked was this: for example, in Chicago they received suggestions from various people, and they took all of those together and considered them in their open meetings, and then made their report and sent their representatives to our committee. So, in order to inquire as to the scope of the study and the suggestions which have been made we have also to reach out to these associations which held all of these meetings, and all of the material, I repeat, that has come to us has been regularly supplied to your committee. Mr. BRYSON. Are there any further questions?

Our counsel has just handed me a letter from the Michigan Patent Law Association, dated June 11, in which they state that the Michigan Patent Law Association endorses and recommends the enactment of H. R. 3760.

Mr. HENRY R. ASHTON,

THE MICHIGAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,

Detroit, Mich., June 11, 1951.

Chairman of the Coordinating Committee On Revision and Amendment of the Patent Laws,

Care of The National Council of Patent Law Associations, Washington,
D. C.

DEAR MR. ASHTON: The Board of managers of the Michigan Patent Law Association having been duly empowered to act for the association in the matter of the revision and amendment of the United States patent laws, have under date of June 11, 1951 passed the following resolution:

"Whereas there is now pending in Congress a bill to revise and codify the patent laws, H. R. 3760; and

"Whereas this association's patent law revision committee has studied that bill and its predecessor and has participated in the joint study thereof with representatives of other patent law associations and trade associations conducted by the Coordinating Committee on Revision and Amendment of the Patent Laws; and

"Whereas the membership of this association in open meeting have considered the predecessor bill H. R. 9133 of the Eighty-first Congress and have expressed approval of that bill; and

"Whereas the patent law revision committee has reported that H. R. 3760 with changes proposed by the said coordinating committee is similar in principle to H. R. 9133 and is a desirable bill: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Michigan Patent Law Association endorses and recommends to the Congress the passage of H. R. 3760 preferably with the clarifying changes recommended by the coordinating committee on revision and amendment of the patent laws; that the chairman of the said coordinating committee be authorized to represent this association at the congressional hearings on the bill and; that the secretary send copies of this resolution to Michigan Senators and Representatives, to the Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Judiciary Committee and to the chairman of the coordinating committee."

It is assumed that you will take the necessary action to see that this resolution is brought to the attention of all interested parties. It would be appreciated if copies could be forwarded to the undersigned of any decisions, minutes of meetings, testimony or hearing reports that may be subsequently published relative to the proposed congressional bill, H. R. 3760.

Very truly yours,

GEORGE W. TALBURTT,
Secretary-Treasurer.

Mr. ASHTON. Yes, I just received a copy of it this morning, and I include it in with those papers I handed up to the committee.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »