The CHAIRMAN. At that time-that was my second or third trip-I was amazed myself to see the improvement in the various processes in refinement or refining oils, and their usages, and the things made from byproducts which we never would dream of.

Mr. WOLVERTON. They make between two and three thousand products out of petroleum, and in this one plant they made 601.

The CHAIRMAN. That same thing applies to wood and paper and pulp and other things.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Almost anything that you wish to apply it to. I have seen the talking-machine industry start from the moment that it was only a scratch, scratch, scratch. There was no music. I live in Camden, N. J., and I have seen that development that has gone into radio and all of that sort of thing, and the basic thought that I had is to be careful that we do not do anything that will destroy_that initiative or that will in any way freeze that initiative, that will leave it open for opportunity to progress, and I think that that must be with private industry rather than in the Government, and so that when you turn a patent over entirely to the Government I do not know whether the initiative will continue or not. That is the thought that I am having in my mind to give consideration to.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was referring to in this bill, as to how we can do the thing that we are trying to do here and yet at the same time not injure industry.

Mr. WOLVERTON. That is exactly so.

Mr. WATSON. May I have permission to file a brief on behalf of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; and now, may I make this announcement for the record, that any witnesses who were not able to appear or were not able to get in any document or statement that they wished to make, will have 5 days to put them in so that they will be included in the record, and there is a great deal of correspondence which, without objection, I will insert in the record, that different industries have sent in, stating that they could not be here but giving their views.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 5:30 p. m., the committee adjourned.)

APPENDIX

285

AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., February 18, 1941.

Hon. CHARLES KRAMER,

Chairman, Committee on Patents,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Enclosed is a copy of the proposed amendments to H. R. 3359 which were recommended on behalf of the American Patent Law Association at the hearing before your committee on February 25.

Very truly yours,

HAROLD T. STOWELL,

Chairman, Committee on Laws and Rules.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 3359 (MR. LANHAM)

RECOMMENDED BY AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

HAROLD T. STOWELL, CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND RULES

Insert before line 6:

"Amend section 1 by inserting after the first paragraph: "The Commissioner may from time to time without lifting the secrecy order permit the invention to be disclosed to specified parties and such disclosure shall not be a violation of the secrecy order.'

"Add to section 2: 'Provided, That notwithstanding the expiration of this act, the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction of any suit filed under the provisions of this act within 1 year after the issuance of a patent, the grant of which has been withheld by order of the Commissioner of Patents as herein provided'."

Page 1, line 6, for "person" substitute: "citizen or resident of the United States or any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by or beneficially owned by any citizen or citizens or resident or residents of the United States."

Page 1, line 9, after "country" insert: "with respect to any invention made in the United States."

Page 2, line 24, before "publishes" insert: "contrary to the provisions of such order or permit.'

Hon. CHARLES KRAMER,

Chairman, Committee on Patents,

STEBBINS & BLENKO, Pittsburgh, Pa., February 26, 1941.

Hoouse of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. KRAMER: I acknowledge with thanks your letter of February 18 enclosing copies of H. R. 3359 and H. R. 3360, and notifying me of a hearing thereon on February 20, last. It was impossible for me to attend the hearing, but I should like to offer the following suggestions in respect of H. R. 3360:

1. It seems to me that the certificate ought to be a certificate as to the operations of the alleged infringer rather than a general certificate in which anyone might take refuge. As I read the present wording of the bill, it would mean that a person infringing the patent and manufacturing articles not used for defense purposes would still be able to avoid an injunction. It does not seem to me that this is just. He ought to get the benefit of the act only if the acts or products which the patentee charges to be an infringement are a contribution toward national defense.

2. I think that the stay of the injunction ought to be conditioned upon payment of the "reasonable compensation for the infringing acts," because otherwise an irresponsible infringer might escape all liability. If engaged in defense work, he should certainly set aside and pay over to the patentee the compensation which the courts declare reasonable, as soon as the right of recovery and the amount of the compensation have been determined. In other words, the patentee should not be limited to an action to recover the compensation. The infringer ought to be required to "pay as he goes."

3. I suggest that it be made clear that, insofar as action on any unexpired patent is concerned, the action shall be according to equity procedure. If this is not done, I apprehend that infringers will ask for jury trials, and I think we are all agreed that this would not be desirable in such an action. Perhaps the result could be reached by providing simply for a suspension of the injunction rather than for a prohibition against the injunction being issued.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER J. BLENKO.