tion of the other companies in the field. However, if our patent protection would be removed, we could not afford to research on the basis that we are at the present time, and in this respect I am sure you will find that we are no different than any other company. My plea, therefore, with you, as chairman of the House Patents Committee, is to so modify the proposed legislation that it will be definitely limited to those articles required by the armed forces to meet the present threat of armed intervention in the European debacle and that, furthermore, the government shall exercise its right to take over the patent only if the then owner or licensees of the owner are unable to supply the product in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the armed forces. Yours very truly, FELT & TARRANT MANUFACTURING CO. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, Chicago, Ill., April 21, 1941. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Through our patent counsel we have been informed of the content in H. R. 3360 which you introduced in the House of Representatives on February 17, 1941. We are in favor of the originally introduced bill providing it makes clear that the denial of injunctions shall only apply to cases of alleged infringing mauufacture, use, or sale for purposes of national defense. The bill, however, should not, in our judgment, extend beyond matters of national defense. We see no justification for the suggested addition to the bill by the Attorney General which makes it possible for the President to issue a declaration whereby patents may be seized. Therefore, our company wishes to go on record as opposing the addition to the bill suggested by the Department of Justice and as approving the action of the Committee on Patents with respect to the bill as originally introduced, subject to our above comment. Yours very truly, ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, HAROLD BYRON SMITH, President. KEYSTONE STEEL & WIRE Co., In re H. R. 3360 and House Joint Resolution 123. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, M. C., Chairman, House Patents Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. SIR: Being informed that your committee will meet in Washington on April 22 and 23 to consider H. R. 3360 and House Joint Resolution 123, we desire to be recorded as approving the report and recommendations of the patent and trade-mark committee of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, which has the approval of the board of directors of that association. We have read the report of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association patent committee regarding H. R. 3360 and regarding revisions thereof requested by the United States Department of Justice, and also the report of the same committee regarding House Joint Resolution 123, and we agree in every particular with such reports and ask your committee to give favorable consideration not only to the report of the committee but to its representative, Mr. Carl Hill, who, we understand, will appear at the hearing before your committee; and we would like very much to see your committee report this bill and this resolution to the Congress, amended as in the particulars set forth in the report of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association patent committee. Assuring you of our deep appreciation for such favorable consideration, we are Very truly yours, CHAS. W. LAPORTE, Vice President. THE LATHROP-PAULSON Co., Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: Regarding H. R. 3360, pertaining to the granting of power to the Federal Government to seize patents during the present national emergency. Naturally, all of us are willing and anxious to do everything we can to promote the general welfare and interest of the American people. In granting such powers careful consideration should be given to the far-reaching effect of such legislation. It should not be necessary to grant to the Federal Government the power to seize all patents, which in turn may destroy the very incentive which those with inventive ability have relied upon in making their developments. The report of the Illinois Manufacturers Association regarding this bill, we believe, covers the situation very well. We ask that you follow their recommendations pertaining to legislation on patents. Yours very truly, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, THE LATHROP-PAULSON Co., LITTELFUSE INC., Chicago, Ill., April 18, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to register our approval of H. R. 3360, bill now before the House, provided it is confined to patents involved for defense purposes. only. We would also approve recommendations made by Hon. Francis M. Shea, Assistant Attorney General, before the House committee on March 11, 1941, empowering the United States Government to seize patents needed for defense purposes with the provision that the inventor may claim reasonable royalty, say 5 percent. Respectfully yours, HON. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, Re: H. R. 3360. LITTELFUSE INC. E. V. SUNDT, President. THE MCALEAR MFG. CO., Chicago, April 15, 1941.. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As an Illinois manufacturer and employer of labor, we wish strongly to express our disapproval of any attempt by the United States Department of Justice, or others, to have incorporated in the legislation proposed in the abovereferred-to bill any provision for the seizure of patents by the Federal Government. We believe that such a provision would be of national benefit only in a fewisolated cases while its general effect would be largely to destroy the American: patent system. Yours very truly, The HONORABLE CHARLES KRAMER, THE MCALEAR MFG. CO., J. R. SHORT MILLING Co., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We should like to go on record in connection with H. R. 3360' pro-viding for the compulsory licensing of patents for defense purposes. We feel perfectly certain that manufacturers holding vital patents would be willing to subordinate their interest in the national emergency. However, we feel strongly that such licenses as might be issued by them should be restricted to the defense program rather than to private enterprise. We believe that such a provision would be advantageous also to the Government in that it would be much more likely to assure continued research work and the filing of patents, in contrast with the utilization of new processes and new products as secrets and without patents. In our own case, we have been doing some important research since 1935. which we think is about to show some interesting, practical applications. Whether it can be used for defense purposes is still a question. If it can be, we would be perfectly willing to make it available, but we ought to be protected from its exploitation for other than defense requirements. Yours very truly, J. R. SHORT MILLING CO. W. F. STRAUB & Co., Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to express our disapproval as to the enactment of any legislation providing for the seizure of patents as recommended by the United States Department of Justice and we respectfully ask your cooperation in defeating such proposed legislation. Under existing laws, the Department of Justice can correct very quickly any delays or unfavorable effects on the production of defense supplies which might be caused by restrictions imposed by German patents. Furthermore, the power of the Chief Executive is such that industries may be taken over if necessary, for defense, and consequently any foreign patent limitation would be automatically eliminated. We believe that the enactment of legislation permitting the seizure of patents in the United States will have the effect of discouraging American inventors because of the questionable situation of ownership which would be involved from the results of their efforts and that thereby, one of the factors that has made this Nation of ours so great and outstanding, would be destroyed. Sincerely yours, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, W. F. STRAUB & Co., President. STREETER-AMET CO., Chicago, April 17, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Subject: H. R. 3360 and additions thereto requested by Department of Justice. DEAR SIR: Request by the Assistant Attorney General that subject bill provide that any patent, or application for letters patent, may be seized by the Government if in the interest of national defense, seems very short sighted. I have wasted enough time on inventors to know that their incentive to invent is mainly represented by their hope for material reward. When that incentive is removed new inventions simply will not be patented-they will be kept secret. I am neither inventor nor patent attorney, nor am I versed in the patent law, but my hard-headed patent lawyer says that the Government right now has the right to use the subject matter of any patent in the interest of national defense. The aforesaid request just does not add up. Yours very truly, STREETER-AMET Co., H. G. BASQUIN, President. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Patents Committee, WESTCLOX, LA SALLE, ILL., April 17, 1941. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are presenting herewith our views regarding H. R. 3360 and the modifications thereof proposed by the Department of Justice. 1. We believe that the purpose of H. R. 3360 is sound and that some legislation of this kind should be enacted. However, it appears to us that the original bill is too broad in its scope in that it denies injunctive relief with respect to all infringements of a patent which has been certified by a proper authority to be important or necessary to national defense and provides that the only remedy of the patentee shall be the right to sue for reasonable compensation for the infringing acts. Should the denial of injunctive relief not be limited to alleged infringing acts which are for national defense? Without such a limitation it would be impossible for a patentee to enjoin flagrant infringement of his patent by some unscrupulous competitor whose infringing manufacture, use, and sale was in no way related to or concerned with national defense. This might in many cases result in irreparable damage to the patentee and conceivably in the destruction of patentee's business, which of course could not be compensated for in a later suit for monetary damages. 2. The patent laws limit recovery in an infringement suit to acts committed within 6 years immediately preceding the filing of the bill of complaint. It is conceivable that a period of declared emergency might exist for a longer period than 6 years. Therefore, should not the bill include a provision to enable a patentee to sue for and recover damages or reasonable compensation for all infringing acts committed during the period of the emergency even if such period went back more than 6 years prior to the filing of the suit? This would eliminate the necessity for more than one suit on the same patent against the same defendant. 3. The Department of Justice has made recommendations for additions to the original bill as set forth in the statement presented to the House committee by the Honorable Francis M. Shea under date of March 11, 1941. The rapid scientific progress and development in the United States is, in my opinion, due to a great extent to the incentives offered by the American patent system. This applies to the work of both the individual inventor and the corporation research and development laboratory. To remove this incentive, even for the undeterminable duration of a national emergency, would seriously curtail the development of new and improved articles, machines, and processes of manufacture which might be of vital importance to national defense. This is particularly true since the proposals made by the Department of Justice would give authority for the Government to assume full control over any patent and to take any action it might desire in connection therewith. Thus the Government might conceivably grant licenses under such patents both for defense and nondefense purposes resulting in serious interference and injury to established industries. The problematical remedy of a suit in the Court of Claims would by no means be a substitute for the incentive offered by the patent laws. 4. It appears that original bill, H. R. 3360, amended to limit the denial of injunctive relief to infringing acts for national-defense purposes, accomplishes all that is necessary to insure freedom from patent interference with nationaldefense efforts. Such drastic measures as proposed by the Department of Justice would be the beginning of the break-down of our American patent system, which, I believe we will all agree, has been a very vital factor in the progress and development of the United States. Respectfully yours, H. H. HULSE, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATOR OF EXPORT CONTROL, Chairman, Committee on Patents, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. KRAMER: Replying further to your letter of April 25, 1941, I have given careful study to the questions raised therein. You ask for information regarding the activities of this office with respect to applications for foreign patents and amendments to such applications, for statutory and other authority under which this office operates, and information regarding the relations between this office and other departments of the Government interested in this activity. For a chronological presentation, I shall vary the order of the answering of the questions from that in which they were propounded. The statutory basis for the control of exports is found in section 6 of the act of July 2, 1940, an act to expedite the strenghtening of the national defense, which provides : "Whenever the President determines that it is necessary in the interest of national defense to prohibit or curtail the exportation of any military equipment or munitions, or component parts thereof, or machinery, tools, or material, or supplies necessary for the manufacture, servicing, or operation thereof, he may by proclamation prohibit or curtail such exportation, except under such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe. Any such proclamation shall describe the articles or materials included in the prohibition or curtailment contained therein. In case of the violation of any provision of any proclamation, or of any rule or regulation, issued hereunder, such violator or violators, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The authority granted in this Act shall terminate June 30, 1942, unless the Congress shall otherwise provide." By military order dated July 2, 1940, the President designated Brig. Gen. R. L. Maxwell Administrator of Export Control to administer the provisions of section 6 under the direction and supervision of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Following the statutory procedure, whenever the President determines it is necessary in the interest of national defense to prohibit or curtail the exportation of any item falling within the general categories listed in the said section 6, a proclamation is issued describing the article or material so prohibited or curtailed. Since July 2, 1940, the President has issued Proclamations Nos. 2413, 2417, 2423, 2428, 2449, 2451, 2453, 2456, 2460, 2461, 2463, 2464, 2468, 2475, 2476, placing under control certain commodities, the forms, conversions, and derivatives of which, by virtue of Executive Order No. 8712, have been listed in the enclosed export control schedules, Nos. 1 through 6, by the Administrator of Export Control. Proclamation No. 2423 of September 12, 1940, was the first proclamation placing "Plans, specifications, and other documents containing descriptive or technical information of any kind other than that appearing in any form available to the general public useful in the design, construction, or operation of any such equipment (equipment for the production of aviation motor fuel) or in connection with any such processes," under export license requirements. By the same proclamation, technical information pertaining to the production of tetraethyl lead, aircraft, or aircraft engines was, in the same manner, prohibited exportation. On December 20, 1940, by Proclamation No. 2451, plans for the production of aviation lubricating oil were prohibited exportation. Both of the last-named proclamations were superseded to the extent that they related to "technical data" by Proclamation No. 2465 of March 4, 1941. Under the authority of this proclamation, export licenses may be required for the exportation of technical information pertaining to any of the materials now under export control or which may later be placed under control. The articles and materials were designated in Proclamation No. 2465 as follows: "Any model, design, photograph, photographic negative, document, or other article or material, containing a plan, specification, or descriptive or technical information of any kind (other than that appearing generally in a form available to the public) which can be used or adapted for use in connection with any process, synthesis, or operation in the production, manufacture, or reconstruction of any of the articles or materials the exportation of which is prohibited or curtailed in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1940, or of any basic or intermediary constituent of any such articles or materials." These articles and materials have been placed under control by virtue of the fact that they are "supplies necessary for the manufacturing, servicing, or operation" of the items prohibited or curtailed exportation under the authority of the said section 6. Executive Order No. 8713 prescribes rules and regulations for the issuance of export licenses for any item which comes within 315217-41-25 |