should, in its judgment, be amended by inserting, page 5, line 18, of the printed bill, after the words "any matter," the words "in connection with any patent application called to its attention under section 4 hereof"; and on page 6, line 11, place a comma after "matters" and, following the comma, insert "other than privileged matters"; and on page 6, line 12, after "investigate," insert "under section 4 hereof." The Patent Law Association of Pittsburgh approves the aims of the bill, and, with the foregoing qualifications, approves its provisions. Respectfully, BAYARD H. CHRISTY, President. LINES, SPOONER & QUARLES, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Your letter of February 18 with reference to H. R. 3359 and H. R. 3360 was received today, the day on which the hearing on the bills was to be held. I would have no objection to either of these bills. Very truly yours, LOUIS QUARLES. GLEASON WORKS, Rochester, N. Y., March 7, 1941. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KRAMER: I have your letters of February 18 and March 1, and our Rochester patent group have held a special meeting to consider H. R, 3359 and H. R. 3360. We are not opposed to enactment of H. R. 3360. We realize that in the present emergency sacrifices of rights must be made in the interest of obtaining the quickest possible production of articles needed for the national defense, and that for this reason it may be necessary to waive injunctive relief during the emergency. We are opposed, however, to H. R. 3359. It seems to us that this measure goes far beyond the requirements of national defense or of the present emergency. It prohibits the filing of an application for any invention in any foreign country without license from the United States Commissioner of Patents. The prohibition is not restricted to inventions relating to munitions of war or to the national defense, but applies to any invention, no matter what its character. Thus, it would cover a toy, a safetypin, etc. Moreover, the prohibition is not restricted as to country. It is not limited to the Axis countries. It applies to Great Britain and to the nations of the Western Hemisphere as well. Still further, it is not limited, as is H. R. 3360, to the duration of the present emergency. If the bill is enacted in its present form, an American citizen will ever after be prohibted from filing a patent application abroad on an invention until he has first obtained permission from the United States Commissioner of Patents. The prohibition will apply in peacetimes as well as in wartimes. We see nothing to justify such legislation. It seems to us that this bill would require creation of a division in the United States Patent Office almost as large as the present Patent Office staff itself, simply to examine requests for licenses to file applications on inventions abroad, and that it would necessitate the setting up of appeal tribunals to hear appeals from denial of such licenses. In addition, there would be the delays that would be entailed in obtaining licenses, and these might be fatal to the inventor's rights. Under the international convention, an American inventor can file an application for his invention in any convention country and be accorded the date of his United States application, provided he files in the foreign country within 1 year of the date of filing his United States application. Thus, he may be able to obtain a foreign patent despite the fact that another may actually have filed in the foreign country ahead of him, and thus he may be able to obtain a foreign patent despite the fact that his invention has been described in a published article before he files abroad. It frequently happens that the year convention period will have nearly elapsed before the inventor can determine that there is enough of a prospective market for his invention to warrant his filing abroad. Then his foreign application has to be filed in a hurry to preserve his rights. In many instances it is liable to be fatal if he is compelled to wait until the United States Patent Office has decided whether or not to grant him a license to file abroad. It seems to us that if any restrictions are to be applied to filing of patent applications in foreign countries, the restrictions should be applied only to inventions for munitions of war or for inventions necessary to the national defense, that in any event the restrictions should not apply to applications filed in Great Britain or in countries of the Western Hemisphere, and that the duration of the restrictions should be limited to the present national emergency. As a matter of fact, we wonder if the powers granted the President by the act of Congress of July 1, 1940 (Public, No. 700), do not already afford sufficient protection for national interests. Under that act the President can prohibit sending abroad of information relating to a process or product vital to national defense, and the President has already applied this prohibition to different processes and products. This will prevent filing of applications abroad for inventions on those processes or products during the present emergency. If it is vital to the national defense to prohibit filing abroad of applications on other processes or products, the President can do so by proclamation when he determines that such prohibition is advisable. Thus our national interests may be protected without requiring that every patent application regardless of its subject matter be submitted to the Commissioner of Patents for a license. Yours very truly, Newton B. Perrins, Gerhard A. Ellestad, Edward H. Cumpston, D. Clyde Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, BOSTON, MASS., March 3, 1941. Chairman of the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Thank you very much for your gracious letter of March 1, 1941, inquiring if I wish to take any position with respect to H. R. 3360 and whether I shall be present at the hearings on this bill on March 11, 1941. The answer to the latter question is "no." While any opinion I may happen to hold regarding this bill is entitled to no particular consideration, since I possess no special competence upon the subject matter of this bill, it does seem to me that the enactment or nonenactment of this bill is an issue to be determined by the attitude of Congress upon the question of national defense and offense. If we are going to become engaged in war, as I have not the smallest doubt that we shall, obviously patents should not be permitted to be utilized as means for the creation of obstructions to preparations for national defense and offense; so much of a lesson should have been learned from such utilization of patents during the last war. Again thanking you for your kind letter, I am, Very truly yours, [Telegram] CHARLES E. RUBY. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, NEW YORK, N. Y. Chairman, Committee on Patents, Washington, D. C.: Have discussed with Mr. Richard Eyre H. R. 3360, on which I believe your committee will hold hearing tomorrow morning. Believe Mr. Eyre will write you on the subject. Am sorry I cannot attend hearing, but as chairman of the patent committee of the American Chemical Society I would suggest extreme caution in considering this bill, as it could easily be abused by unscrupulous individuals through misrepresentation of facts and thus do severe damage to individuals and corporations who are doing their utmost to assist the Government and to take care of the best interests of the public. WALTER A. SCHMIDT. Re H. R. 3360. NEW YORK, March 4, 1941. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN KRAMER: Thank you for your letter of February 28, 1941, enclosing copy of the above bill and advising me of the hearings on March 11 and 12, 1941. As a member of the committee on patent law revision, A. B. A., I have presented my views on this legislation to the chairman of the committee, John A. Dienner, Esq., and the chairman of the subcommittee, Chester L. Davis, Esq., but will be unable to be present at the hearings. I held a commission in the United States Navy during the last war and have retained a commission in the Naval Reserve ever since 1920. You will, therefore, understand that I am thoroughly in favor of the efforts of Congress to provide an adequate defense for our country and am a 100-percent believer in the principles underlying the Kramer bill. Patents and private interests must not interfere with the speedy development of national defense. At present it is necessary to bring suit in the Court of Claims against an infringing contractor supplying the Government. This is not necessary, however, where a subcontractor is supplying equipment to a contractor, the latter in turn making deliveries to the Government. Therefore, any reasonable measure which will leave the Government free to carry out the defense program will meet with general approval. On the other hand, I do not approve of any law which would prevent a patent owner from securing an injunction against a manufacturer who is supplying goods for civil use, which goods constitute infringement of the patent owner's rights, unless it can be clearly shown that such an injunction would interfere with the supply to the Government, and hence with the defense program. In other words, if a manufacturer is delivering an infringing article to the Government and a similar infringing article to a commercial organization for civil uses, I agree that no injunction should lie against the deliveries to the Government during the period of emergency, but do believe that the patent owner should be in a position to stop the infringement for civil uses. I have learned, with a great deal of pleasure, that you are not one to be stampeded into the belief that our industry is dominated and controlled by foreignowned patents. From my own experience, this sort of talk is just so much eyewash. With much appreciation of the good work that you and your committee are doing, I am, Very respectfully, F. BASCOM SMITH. SINGER, EHLERT, STERN & CARLBERG, Re: H. R. 3360. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: I have your reminder concerning the continuations of the hearings on the bill introduced by you on February 17, 1941, and for which the first hearing was fixed for February 20, While I have written at length to Mr. Lanham regarding H. R. 3359, I have nothing to say with respect to the bill sponsored by you except that I fully agree with the same. This bill, however, is more of interest for the manufacturers and for lawyers restricting their practice to United States work than it is for an office specializing in international practice, as this office does. I take the liberty of enclosing a copy of the letter written to Mr. Lanham, and repeat that I fully agree with the provisions of H. R. 3360. Very truly yours, SINGER, EHLERT, STERN & CARLBERG, By FELIX STERN. SINGER, EHLERT, STERN & CARLBERG, Re: H. R. 3359. Hon. FRITZ G. LANHAM, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LANHAM: This office specializes in international patent law. We cooperate with attorneys in our country to solicit-and maintain patents for their clients in foreign countries, and we cooperate with attorneys abroad to solicit for their clients, patents in the United States. It is obvious that we are greatly interested in legislation pertaining to the regulation of this phase of the law, and hence are also sincerely interested in the bill introduced by you on February 7, 1941. It is now before the Committee on Patents, and the Chairman, Mr. Kramer, was good enough to advise us that hearings were held on February 20. fortunately, the advice came somewhat too late. I had been in Washington in connection with patent matters on February 21, but again unfortunately, I was kept busy all day in the Patent Office, and while I had the good intention of calling on you and talking about the bill, I simply could not do it. Un The bill contemplates that no application should be filed abroad unless licensed by the Commissioner of Patents. Needless to say, that we shall cooperate to the fullest extent in any endeavor to strengthen the defense. Still, we believe that this indiscriminate subjection of all foreign applications to the licensing power of the Commissioner goes a bit too far. Not only that the United States applicant has to take certain steps which might curtail his rights, but it also seems to us that the Commissioner's office would be overburdened by this additional function. I have on my desk from foreign countries for filing in the United States an application emanating from Germany on a color photography process, an application emanating from an Italian subject, and entrusted to me through an attorney in France on depilatory pads apparently for cosmetic use, several applications also emanating from France on pumps and compressors; I also have for filing abroad on behalf of American inventors applications on fountain pens, an application for assorting cereal grains by flotation, an application for lubricating drawing dies. etc. I mention these specific examples merely to illustrate that while the field of patent law in itself is a relatively narrow field, compared with the vast importance of the general law, the field of inventions is relatively unlimited, and that the majority of inventions—at least at normal times--is of practically no interest for the defense of the country. In filing applications abroad, time very often is of essence; unless an application reaches the foreign country at a certain day it may be too late to obtain the rights. Now, most foreign countries, those involved in the war and some of the others that up to now remained neutral or unoccupied, have passed legislation affecting patent matters to remedy the great delays encountered in all postal communications. But these legislative remedies usually prescribe that the benefits contained in the remedial statutes shall apply in favor of foreigners only to the extent of reciprocity. Hence, United States citizens by right must maintain the filing dates, and dates of payments of fees, etc., as provided in the ordinary law. The United States so far has not passed any enactment which would change the 12-month provision of section 4687 Revised Statutes of the United States to any longer period in favor of parties who have been prevented by war conditions from filing in this country within the 12-month period. The task of licensing or examining applications as to whether they have been licensed or not now thrown onto the Commissioner's office would increase the delay with which applications and other acts of United States citizens are threatened abroad. If we, therefore, charge the Commissioner with the discretionary power to permit filing abroad or to refuse it, it is my sincere opinion that we also should amend section 4687 or pass a statute which would lengthen the time limits that have been provided for in section 4687. Similarly also, this remedial statutory amendment of an existing statute should provide that pending applications shall not be considered forfeited or abandoned if those steps which are normally bound to certain times under the rules of practice of the Patent Office are not carried out within these specified times. Both of these remedies-lengthening the period for filing here and lengthening the period for taking steps under the rules, should, of course, be made applicable to foreigners solely under the condition that their country grants reciprocal benefits to citizens of this country. The Commissioner might from time to time publish in the Official Gazette of the Patent Office a notice to the effect that citizens of certain countries are entitled to these benefits. In foreign countries, according to our own advices, there is no such general license provision, as is contemplated in section 3 of bill 3359. We believe that in Great Britain as well as in Germany, this subject matter is regulated drastically from the financial end. Before anybody can file an application abroad, he of course, must assure his foreign correspondent that he will be paid, and the finance authorities in Great Britain and Germany simply refuse authority to make these payments unless it is believed that the invention should be filed abroad. As to the extensions of time for filing and taking other steps in the prosecution, most countries belonging to the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property have extended the 12-month period by legislative enactments, and continue to do so, that is, one enactment, for instance, provides that this extension shall not apply after January 1, 1941-and when that date came around and the war was still on, another enactment was passed extending this time to June 1, 1941. Undoubtedly additional enactments will be passed, as for instance, in Holland, Norway, and so forth, again to extend these times. As far as the practice in the Patent Office is concerned, Germany has simplified it considerably. The attorney who cannot make a proper response in due time, asks the Patent Office for an extension, and if he does not receive an answer from the Patent Office, the extension is granted. The time limits for making payments also had been liberally extended, especially on the continent. To revert to the general licensing provision, we always have to consider that patent applications alone are by no means the only way in which notice of any innovation in any art reaches the foreign country. A few weeks ago the daily press, particularly the press of a certain political shade, pretended to be greatly alarmed because in a British aviation journal, information was published regarding American-made airplanes, that in our country was considered secret. Similarly also, in other fields of engineering. In radio, motion-picture art, etc., there is so much new matter published even at the present time in periodicals that the patent applications do not convey the latest information to the foreign authorities. Our own periodicals contain considerable valuable information in all fields on our activities in a thousand different lines, not directly associated with defense. Now, these periodicals do go abroad. They may not go directly to continental European countries that should not learn about it, but they reach these countries in a roundabout way through South America, through Japan, etc. It is for this reason that I am not so certain that this licensing provision universally applicable to all inventions will really stop those leaks of which we are afraid. At any rate, the Commissioner might right from the beginning apply a stamp to any filing certificate for an application issued by him in this country, stating whether foreign applications can be filled or not. At least, in those applications that will then be filed subsequent to the enactment of H. R. 3359, the applicant could go ahead in view of that general stamp on his filing certificate. I would have been very glad to talk about this bill with you, but regret that I was unable to do so, and it is for this reason that I ask you to forgive this lengthy letter. Very truly yours, SINGER, EHLERT, STERN & CARLBERG, By FELIX STERN. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, CAMERON, KERKAM & SUTTON, Chairman, Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: Thank you very much for your favor of the 28th ultimo advising me of hearings to be had on H. R. 3360 on March 11. Unfortunately I have to be in the West at that date so I cannot attend the hearing. I would like to submit the following comments concerned with the bill as it now stands: 1. I am apprehensive that unless provision is included specifying that nothing in the act shall deprive the patentee of his remedy to proceed in equity, the |