details as to the procedure when the appeal is taken. We recommend that that appeal be done away with.

Mr. HAMMER. What do you substitute for that?

Mr. HUXLEY. We leave in the law a provision that an action may be started in the district court, where necessary, but we do not see that there is any need, in connection with the issuance of the patent and in an interference, as I have explained, of all these appeals; that is, there are three appeals.

Mr. HAMMER. Would it not make it harder for the person who was aggrieved or claimed to be aggrieved, to_institute an independent suit than it would be for him to appeal? I am not fighting you, you understand. I amy simply asking for information.

Mr. HUXLEY. No: it would not.

Mr. HAMMER. It looks to me that your purpose is to prevent people from appealing from the decision of the commissioner.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Is it not the gentlemen's purpose to avoid a multiplicity of appeals?

Mr. HUXLEY. Exactly.

Mr. BLOOM. When you say "we," whom do you mean by "we"? Mr. HUXLEY. The American Bar Association. It does not abolish appeals in the Patent Office, but it would abolish the appeal from the Patent Office to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, which is exactly on the same record.

Mr. HAMMER. It requires, instead, a suit to be instituted, and you have to give bond?

Mr. HUXLEY. No, sir.

Mr. HAMMER. You do not have to give bond? How can you guarantee the costs pay them as you go along?

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes; pay them as you go along. It amounts to only about $200.

Mr. HAMMER. You do not have to file a bond on appeal from the Commissioner of Patents?

Mr. HUXLEY. No, sir.

Mr. HAMMER. Now, you make it harder; in other words, you make it absolutely impossible to appeal at all from the commissioner, but in order to circumbent or overrule the Commissioner of the Patent Office, you must institute an independent suit, and in order to do that, you must get a bondsman.

Mr. HUXLEY. It will be a nominal bond.

Mr. HAMMER. I do not agree with you that $200 is a nominal bond.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Will you kindly explain whether or not the rights of the parties are properly safeguarded if those amendments should be adopted?

Mr. HUXLEY. As we see it, absolutely. The only thing is that, as I have suggested, it stops these interminable appeals. As the American Bar Association sees it, in an interference, for instance, there is one appeal, the same as there is in a court where you bring a suit and appeal, to a board of three, that ends it. One appeal to a board of three, with the supervisory capacity of the commissioner in the background, is sufficient. If a man wants to go into court, he can, under the existing provision of the law, start the case in equity. Mr. HAMMER. It may be a good thing.

Mr. HUXLEY. Have I made the point clear?

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you to do this, and we will know what the law is: Tell the commitee the beginning of the action-someone asking for a patent-just how the law at the present time acts, and then what would happen if those amendments were adopted, and I think then we will know just exactly what this means.

Mr. WEFALD. That is where we should have started.

Mr. HUXLEY. A man applies for a patent. That goes before a man in the Patent Office called the primary examiner. He rejects it and there is an appeal to a board of three men, the examiners in chief. We leave that just the same. Then there is an appeal to the Commissioner of Patents. We would leave that the same in the ex parte cases. Then, in the present law, there is an appeal, on the same record, to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. We do away with that. At present there is a provision where you can start a suit in equity and have a real trial, if you are not satisfied. That is the only difference.

There is a slight difference in interference cases. There the first thing is that the case is decided by a man called the examiner in interference. We leave that the same. Then it comes to the board of three. We leave that the same. Then at present it goes, as a matter of right; that is, either party, as a matter of right, can take an appeal to the Commissioner of Patents. We would change that, so that the decision of this board of three men is final in so far as the Patent Office proceedings are concerned, except the commissioner, either on his own volition, by some one on petition, or on request of the board itself, acting in a supervisory capacity, could decide it, but the party could not have that appeal as a matter of right. The reason we feel the commissioner should always have that authority is that of course the Patent Office is an executive department of the Government, where the authority should be reposed in one man. He would always have that right, but there would be one appeal. At present there is an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. We do away with that. At present you can start an action, under section 4915, and we leave that as it is.

Mr. HAMMER. Did we not have an appeal to the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. HUXLEY. Possibly years ago, but not that I know of. Mr. BLOOM. You said the authority should be in one man. What do you mean by the authority should be in one man? Mr. HUXLEY. Simply as a matter of organization. I am speaking

now

Mr. BLOOM. Authority should be in one man-what do you mean by that?

Mr. HUXLEY. Because it is an executive department of the Government and he should have the final authority in reference to the granting of patents.

Mr. BLOOM. Do you mean that that is a democratic form of government, that the authority should be in one man?

Mr. HUXLEY. The ultimate authority.

Mr. GOODWIN. Subject to review by the courts?

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Do I understand the gentleman would deny an appeal to the court in connection with the decision of the commissioner in the first instance?

Mr. HUXLEY, In the first instance; yes, sir, a direct appeal. Mr. UNDERWOon. Why would the gentleman do that? Mr. HUXLEY. Because it would do away with one appeal which would save time and expense to litigants. It would also leave the person the right to go into a court of equity if a man is not satisfied with the decision of the commissioner, and have a trial on the merits; n other words, you would not take the right to go to court away from him, but the right of bringing an appeal on the same record to the court.

Mr. BLOOM. Who would be hurt if we left this as it is? Personally I do not know whether it is going to be better to change it or better to leave it as it is. I want to get it right for everyone and I believe that is the idea of the committee. Who would be hurt if you allow this to stay? How would anyone be hurt by allowing it to stay as it is?

Mr. HUXLEY. Two would be hurt; first, the inventor. Take a case in interference. He may win the interference in the first instance. The opposing party can tie him up for a period of years before his patent can ever be issued, simply by taking these interminable appeals.

Mr. BLOOM. Suppose the party was right?

Mr. HUXLEY. Well

Sup

Mr. BLOOM. You say the inventor and the opposing party. pose you were the inventor and I was the opposing party and that you infringed upon something that I am entitled to.

Mr. HUXLEY. There would be occasional cases where the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia would reach a different decision from every tribunal in the Patent Office, but looking at it broadly, it is the opinion of the committee that it is better to get the matter settled and better for the inventor and better for industry to have these matters settled and have the patent issued than it is to tie matters up for years on interminable appeals with the possibility that justice will be better done that way. In other words, you could extend the appeals indefinitely.

Mr. BLOOM. But you said something about the committee and industry. You are speaking about groups?

Mr. HUXLEY. No.

Mr. BLOOм. Pardon me. I am using your language. You said about the committee and industry. How about the individual? Mr. HUXLEY. The individual; yes, sir. The individual, as I say, may win every stage of the game and yet, by the adverse losing party, at each stage of the game, those proceedings may be held up and a man held up from getting his patent a period of years. It seems to us that one decision in interference matters from three men is just as likely to give justice as one appeal to one man and then an appeal to another man.

The CHAIRMAN. On exactly the same record?

Mr. HUXLEY. On exactly the same record; yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. Are not all those appeals decided by people connected with one department?

Mr. HUXLEY. No, sir; they are all Patent Office decisions except the decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Mr. BLOOM. I do not believe you understood what I meant.

Mr. HUXLEY. Possibly I did not.

Mr. BLOOM. All are decisions of examiners-that is, all one department?

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes, sir; up through the commissioner.

Mr. WEFALD. Would you want to cut out his appeal to the commissioner?

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes, sir; in interparte cases, where there are two opposing parties. In the ex parte case, where a man is trying to get a patent, there it is the same for him.

Mr. WEFALD. But as I understood you, you still want to give the commissioner the right to review if he sees fit.

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEFALD. Why do you propose that?

Mr. HUXLEY. Because if he was not given that final authority he would not longer be the head of the Patent Office. That is, all authority in the Patent Office exercised in the Patent Officenaturally is delegated from the commissioner, and to take the authority away from the head of the office the final authority-if he wants to exercise it, would, it seems to us, be not advisable.

Mr. WEFALD. I want to know why you want to give him that discretionary power and take away from the applicant the right to appeal to him.

Mr. HUXLEY. The man that wins the patent, the applicant, just for himself, ex parte, has the right to appeal to the commissioner. Mr. WEFALD. I thought in the last instance he would not have the right.

Mr. HUXLEY. Where there are two parties in a contested case we take the right of appeal from him unless the commissioner grants that right of appeal by certiorari.

Mr. WEFALD. If the law is changed as you propose, would that be in favor of the poor inventor, to protect him from having the invention stolen away from him?

Mr. HUXLEY. Yes, sir; it seems to us it would be very much to the advantage of the poor inventor, because instead of having the opportunity afforded the rich inventor of tying him up in appeals the matter would be settled in one appeal.

Mr. WEFALD. As I understand it, in the case of some basic invention and someone is trying to take it away-I have been told recently by inventors that some basic inventions have been in litigation for almost the full period of the patent. If the law were changed would that be a step in correcting that?

Mr. HUXLEY. He would get the patent much quicker. After a suit for infringement has been started, that is a different matter. A patent might be involved in litigation, but as far as the issuance of the patent is concerned, much money and much delay under this proposed system would be saved for the inventor, and at the same time the patent would be issued and the period of the monopoly of 17 years would begin to run.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, there are many cases in which patents are delayed in the Patent Office over long periods, and then finally they come out prolonging the period of the monopoly unduly, and what we are trying to do is simplify that whole business.

Mr. WEFALD. Some cases have come to my notice that, if they are true, I am at the point of losing faith absolutely in the Patent Office.

Mr. HUXLEY. There are many criticisms along those lines, Mr. Congressman, and it is the object of this bill, as I say, to cut out these endless appeals and simplify it and make it so a man can get his patent through with the minimum time and expense.

Mr. WEFALD. I think we ought to take a lot of time and discuss this very question.

Mr. BLOOM. I have an idea of about what this thing represents. I think, to get a clear idea for the committee, we should hear one witness in opposition.

Mr. HAMMER. Is anybody opposed to it?

SEVERAL VOICES. Yes.

Mr. HAMMER. Just one moment; I did not intend to take the gentleman off his feet.

Mr. WEFALD. I do not like the idea of any witness being taken off his feet.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, I am merely making a suggestion here. I thought when the gentleman was finished and he could take all the time he needs, and he can take it as far as I am concerned

Mr. HAMMER. Mr. Chairman, just a moment. Mr. McLeod and myself have previous arrangements for another committee meeting at 11 o'clock. Mr. McLeod just made a motion and I want him heard before I go. I do not see anything that will be gained by not. letting the proponents of this measure complete their statements. My breakfast did not sit as badly as that of my friend, and I would be willing to delay and be patient. I am willing to wait and bide my time. I do not look with great favor on this, but I suppose it is correct and I will look with favor on it before it is through. It looks like shutting off something and making a one-man rule. may be wrong about that.

But I simply ask that you let Mr. McLeod make a motion and that you excuse us for this morning.

Mr. BLOOM. Will you proceed without a quorum?

Mr. HAMMER. Unless you raise the point.

Mr. BLOOM. I am not raising the point. The only reason I asked that one witness in opposition be heard was so that we might be able to get a fair idea of the whole proposition.

Mr. HAMMER. I think it will confuse us.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I suggest we let the gentleman go ahead and make out his case.

Mr. McLEOD. Do you say there is not a quorum present?

The CHAIRMAN. There is not a quorum present. I think you had better let the matter rest until this afternoon.

Mr. HAMMER. We will come back after 11 o'clock, but we have got to go now.

The CHAIRMAN. We will meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock.

Mr. GOODWIN. Under these proposed bills we are discussing, do they take away from any applicant the right to have his case reviewed by the duly constituted courts of justice of our country?

Mr. HUXLEY. No, sir.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is what I wanted to know. Now, may I ask whether or not, in the ex parte proceedings, if the decision of the commissioner would be final?