E. (Patent Rights for H. C. Technique). The term "patent rights for H. C. Technique" shall mean any German patents which may issue on German application U 12,655 IVd/23b filed July 11, 1934, or any divisions or continuations thereof, or any renewals, extensions or reissues of said patents, and transferable rights thereunder, for the full duration of said patents insofar as the claims of said patents cover:

(1) Any process of H. C. Technique;

(2) Any process involving a process of H. C. Technique as a step in combination with other steps;

(3) Any apparatus designed for or of special application in a process of H. C. Technique;

(4) Any composition of matter used in solution or suspension as an aid in a process of H. C. Technique;

(5) Product claims covering finished lubricating oils, but only insofar as said claims cover oils produced by processes of H. C. Technique;

(6) Process claims for finishing lubricating o'ls, but only insofar as said claims cover oils produced by processes of H. C. Technique;

(7) Processes for recovery of propane and/or hexane, and/or phenol, and/or other solvents, refrigerants or agents when admixed with petroleum oil as a result of a process of H. C. Technique.

By way of clarification it is understood that patent rights for H. C. Technique include claims for a process of solvent extraction (cf. Article L Section A (e)) or a composition of matter employed as a solvent, but except as to phenol, only to such extent as such claims are used in (i. e. infringed by) processes of H. C. Technique. For example, a claim for "a process comprising treating oil with B B' dichlorethylether" is licensed, but only in a process of H. C. Technique.

*

*

By way of clarification it is understood that the clause "insofar as the claims of said patent cover (2) any process involving a process of H. C. Technique as a step in combination with other steps" includes only such claims as cover the combination per se and shall not include any claims which separately cover the steps of said combination, other than (1), (6), and (7) above, it being the intent of the parties that no process is included in said clause which does not include H. C. Technique as one element.

It is understood, by way of illustration and not of limitation, that (4) above is intended to include wax-settling aids, and the like, for example "Paraflow” or “Pourex,” insofar as such compositions are used in processes of H. C. Technique, but not to the extent that such products are retained by the finished lubricating oil in quantities sufficient to benefit the properties of said Oil.

By way of clarification it is understood that (5) above does not include product claims insofar as they cover stocks charged to a process or processes of H. C. Technique.

F. (Subsidiaries). The term “subsidiaries" shall mean: All corporations or companies of which the parent company owns directly or indirectly more than 50 percent of the stock having the right to vote for directors.

For the purposes of the above definition, the stock owned by the parent company shall be deemed to include all stock having the right to vote for directors and owned directly or indirectly by any of its subsidiaries as defined above.

ARTICLE II. GRANT OF LICENSE

DEVELOPMENT hereby grants and agrees to grant to I. G. an exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license (with full power to sublicense others without accounting to DEVELOPMENT) under DEVELOPMENT'S patent rights for H. C. Technique but subject to the following limitations:

1. DEVELOPMENT reserves for itself and for all subsidiaries of its parent company, Standard Oil Company, a corporation of New Jersey, a nonexclusive royalty-free license under DEVELOPMENT'S patent rights for H. C. Technique: and 2. The license is subject to the rights of Allgemeine Gesellschaft für Chemische Industrie, m. b. H., a German company, as referred to in Article IV-D of s certain agreement re “H. C. Technique" dated January 1, 1938, by and between Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), Standard Oil Development Company, Union Oil Company of California, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), and The M. W. Kellogg Company.

ARTICLE II. MAINTENANCE OF PATENT RIGHTS FOR H. C. TECHNIQUE

I. G. agrees to pay the costs of prosecution of German Application U 12655 IVd/23b subsequent to the date of this agreement and to pay the costs of working and taxes on any patents which may issue on the said German application.

In the event I. G. wishes to abandon the said German application or to discontinue the maintenance of any German patents which may issue on the said application, I. G. agrees to give DEVELOPMENT ample notice of its intention so to do, so that DEVELOPMENT may have an opportunity to decide whether it wishes to continue the prosecution or maintenance of the said German application or German patents at its own expense.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

Return to STANDARD OIL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Room 709, 26 Broadway.

GIBSON EXHIBIT No. 101

CHEMNYCO INC.,

521 Fifth Avenue, New York, June 11, 1938.

Purchase of Germany Juik Patent Rights by I. G.

Mr. W. E. CURRIE,

Standard Oil Development Company,

26 Broadway, New York, N. Y.

DEAR MR. CURRIE: As we informed you with our letters of June 1 and 8, I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft have arranged the payment of the $15,000 due you for the German Juik patent rights (regarding details compare your letter to I. G. of December 15, 1937, which was confirmed by them).

In making this payment I. G. will-as a matter of expediency-deduct their share of the net profit collected by your company during the years 1934 to 1937 from the licensing of the Juik patent rights outside of Germany.

Taking as basis the statement covering Standard Oil Development Company's expenditures and income relating to the Juik patent rights in the total amount of $5,939.84, as forwarded by you to the I. G. with letter of January 11, 1938, I. G.'s share in the profit derived from Juik patent rights will have to be arrived at as follows:

The sum of $15,000, now payable by I. G., is to be taken off the amount of expenditures, a total of $20.939.84 remaining. From this amount of profit I. G. is to receive 20 percent of Standard-I. G.'s 50% portion, viz: $2,093.98; less 15% Federal Income Tax, $314.10; total, $1,779.88.

I. G. have deducted this amount from the $15,000-now to be paid so that there remains due Standard Oil Development Co. the sum of $13,220.12, the payment of which was to be effected by I. G. the first days of this month. Please let us know whether you find this calculation correct.

Yours very truly,

71593-42-pt. 7

-38

CHEMNYCO INC.,

C. MUELLER.

JULY 20, 1938. Check for $13,220.12 from I. G. Farb. to STANDARD OIL DEVELOPMENT Co. sent to D. G. Tomkins with notation:

"On account of German Juik rights-$15,000 minus some deductions, F. A. H."

GIBSON EXHIBIT No. 102

M. F.

Dr. C. MUELLER,

STANDARD OIL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

26 Broadway, New York, March 6, 1940.

Chemnyco Inc., 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.

DEAR DR. MUELLER: Replying to your letter of February 9, 1940, in connection with the sale to I. G. of the JUIK patent rights for Austria, we confirm that we are willing to include the JUIK patent rights for the former territory of Czechoslovakia in this sale.

Very truly yours,

RPR: BK.

CC: Mr. W. E. Currie.
Mr. F. A. Howard.

Mr. F. R. Loofbourow.

R. P. RUSSELL,

4/3/40.

MEMORANDUM FOR FILE RE: GERMAN JUIK AGREEMENT

The agreement of May 19, 1936, by which Development purchased the German H. C. Technique patent rights of Union, Indiana, and Kellogg, contained in Article V which expressly permitted Development to pass on to I. G. the technical information conveyed by said other parties to Development. When the May 19, 1936, agreement was consolidated into agreement of January 1, 1938, this article was omitted. The latter agreement cancels the agreement of May 19, 1936 (Article II).

The agreement of January 1, 1938, in Article XI, provides for transfer of H. C. Technique information among the parties. There is nowhere any restriction on the use made by the parties of this information. We, accordingly, take the position that Development has the right to pass on to I. G. and H. C. Technique information it acquires from the other parties to the JUIK agreement.

The possibility of our selling I. G. rights under the extension of German patents to Austria and Czechoslovakia, and authorizing I. G. to utilize H. C. Technique information in those territories, was taken up with the JUIK parties some months ago. No formal proposal was made to the other parties and no specific statement of their position was furnished in writing. The matter was discussed orally with Mr. Harvison, who said that so far as he was advised at the time, the Kellogg Company did not care what was done with the extended German rights.

There appears to be no reason why we should delay making the proposed agreement with I. G.

WEC: MS.

W. E. CUERIE.

CHEMNYCO, INC.,

521 Fifth Avenue, New York, January 7, 1941.

Re: H. C. Technique Rights for former territories of Austria and Czechoslovakia. STANDARD OIL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Legal Department, 26 Broadway, New York, N. Y. (Attention: Mr. W. E. Currie)

GENTLEMEN: We refer to your letter of May 13, 1940, and to the draft agreement dated May 9, 1940, extending to I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft patent rights and technical information in the above-entitled matter.

We have now heard from abroad and wish to report that I. G. agrees in principle, except as to some minor changes, to the agreement. I. G. requests that under the circumstances the agreement as submitted be considered by the parties

as in force since May 9, 1940, and that the execution of the formal agreement as of May 9, 1940, be deferred to some future date. We trust that you will consent to this request.

In the matter of fair compensation for transfer of the patent rights under this agreement, we are authorized to discuss this question with you. We believe that a basis for the determination of the compensation could readily be found when considering the extent or possible commercial use of the patent rights in the territories of Austria and Czechoslovakia as compared to the evaluation of similar rights for Germany previously obtained by I. G. We may add that I. G. is quite agreeable that the compensation is to be paid by withholding of royalties which are and will become due to I. G. under the Juik patent rights for all countries except Germany and the former territories mentioned herein.

We shall be pleased, at any time convenient to you, to take up this matter. Very truly ours,

FB: heb.

GIBSON EXHIBIT No. 103

CHEMNYCO INC.
C. MUELLER.

JULY 29, 1938.

Mr. F. A. HOWARD,

Building.

DEAR MR. HOWARD: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has obtained a British patent No. 479,345 which covers a process of combining isoparaffins with olefins to produce a saturated polymer. I am attaching a photostat of the patent. We feel that the Anglo-Iranian process may have application to our manufacturing operations. The laboratory work that has been carried out roughly checked the claims of this patent and we are now carrying out a more detailed investigation of the process. Perhaps the most important application would be for making a blending agent for high octane fuels. In our hot acid polymer operation followed by hydrogenation we obtained a yield of approxi mately 19% by weight, or 15% by volume, based on the C cut of polymer, suitable for adding to aviation gasoline. This polymer has an cctance number of about 96 C. F. R. By the Anglo-Iranian process, with some improvements and viewing the yields optimistically, it may be possible to obtain, perhaps by adding some extraneous iso-butane, a yield of 57% by weight or 45% by volume of a suitable polymer having an octane number of around 92 C. F. R. This polymer will have a wider distillation range than the hot acid polymer and in particular may contain more pentane, hexane, and heptane fractions. While higher concentration of the Anglo-Iranian type polymer will be required in 100 octane fuel than is the case for the hot acid polymer, our very rough estimates indicate that the actual amount of 100 octane fuel that can be produced from a given amount of C cut will increase about 80% by the use of the Anglo-Iranian type of operation.

We have not as yet carried the experimental work far enough to say definitely if we will want to use Anglo-Iranian type of operation. There is, however, an indication that it may have a real application. So far no United States patent has issued corresponding to the British patent, and I do not believe that any Dutch patent has issued either. From a very rough glimpse of the prior art there does not appear to be any real anticipation of the claims of the Anglo-Iranian patent. A more detailed search, however, will be necessary before this may be definitely established. At present we do not have the personnel for making this search but should be able to start on it in two or three weeks.

You will note that the claims of the Anglo-Iranian patent are specific to sulfuric acid. There may be other catalysts which are equally suitable and some work is being carried out along this line. It must be realized, of course, that the product produced from this type of operation is, from the chemical standpoint, of low value and hence the catalyst used must not contribute much to the cost of the operation.

Our own operations are being reviewed to see if we have any use on our part which would anticipate the Anglo-Iranian patent. The nearest approach we have been able to find so far is the polymer that has been produced in the secondary butyl alcohol operations. In these operations the butane cut in the past has been treated with 92% sulfuric acid in a temperature range that would correspond to

that in which Anglo-Iranian reports alkylation occurs. There is apparently on information to tell whether or not the polymer contains paraffins. This question is, however, being investigated and we will report on it later.

Right at present I do not have any recommendations to what action should be taken on this matter. We do not know that a patent will issue in the United States corresponding to the British patent, although it appears probable that it may. We do no know that other catalysts which are suitable for this operation and not covered by the Anglo-Iranian patents may not be developed. Furthermore, we do not know if we would have any prior use on our part of this operation. I am simply presenting this matter to you since I feel it is important. Very truly yours,

EVM: BF.

Enclosure.

Copy to Mr. R. P. Russell.

Mr. W. E. Currie,

Dr. C. L. Brown.

E. V. MURPHREE.

P. S. I have just run across British patent 479,827 issued to Shell, which covers the same field as the Anglo-Iranian patent. The Anglo-Iranian patent was filed July 29, 1936, whereas the Shell patent indicates a convention date in Holland of July 16, 1936. Presumably the Shell patent would have the priority in the United States. I am attaching a copy of the Shell patent.

E. V. M.

GIBSON EXHIBIT NO. 101

SEPTEMBER 13, 1938.

Alkylation Processes-British Patents of Anglo-Iranian and Shell

Mr. F. A. HOWARD,

c/o Mr. W. R. Carlisle, Thames House, Millbank, London, S. W. 1, England.

DEAR MR. HOWARD: The following information is for your use in considering what efforts to make toward obtaining for Jersey a license under Shell's and Anglo-Iranian's patents on akylation, either as part of the catalytic cracking setlement or otherwise. The conclusion reached by Mr. Murphree, Mr. Young, and me, is that we are probably justified in filing a patent application, based on laboratory work done at Baton Rouge in 1935, containing claims which would be put into interference with the Shell and Anglo-Iranian United States applications. As you will see from what follows, our chance of winning the interferences is small. We plan to ask Mr. Russell to review this tomorrow and give his concurrence or write a dissenting opinion.

ANGLO-IRANIAN'S AND SHELL'S PATENTS

On January 31, 1938 British patent No. 479,345 issued to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited. On February 23, 1938 Britain patent No. 479,827 issued to Shell. These two patents (copies enclosed) are closely similar in subject matter, each dealing with the alkylation of isoparaffins by olefines under the influence of strong sulfuric acid (around 97% at low temperatures (-10° to 30° C.)). Claim 1 of the Anglo-Iranian patent will indicate the nature of the alleged invention:

"A process for the production of an aviation or motor spirit or constituent by the alkylation of an isoparaffin, in which isobutane is condensed with an olefine or olefines, such, for example, as one of the lower olefines (except ethylene); namely, propylene or the iso- or normal butanes or the lower polymerides of isobutene, particularly the dimeride or the trimeride, in the presence of sulphuric acid in a reaction carried out at a low temperature, in which equimolecular proportions of isobutane and the selected olefine or olefines react (or the equivalent as when the lower polymerides of isobutene are used) for the production of saturated isoparaffin derivatives, whereby on settlement an upper hydrocarbon layer separates, from which may be produced on distillation an aviation or motor spirit or constituent that consists, according to the proportions of the reactants employed. entirely or substantially of the saturated isoparaffin derivatives produced in the reaction.