WIXLIB

THE NEW PATENT LAW.4passed the House of5&6W. 4, and becamewas givenprtisclaim.Confirmation and extension ofterm.Commons byto disclaim part ofa small majority,Bythis act poweran invention, and tothe law of the land.amend the letters patent and specification also, theCrown was empoweredto confirm existinffpatents, and'"j'to grant new letters patent for an extended term, on; . jgrecommendation of the Judicial Comm.ittee ofwhich there had beenthe Privy Council, in cases ina limited prior user unknown to the patentee, and inwhich adequate remuneration had not been obtainedfrom the invention. This act has been a great boonto inventors, and has,' it is conceived, more thanrealised the anticipations of its noble author (6).ThelateLord Langdale, ujider the provisions of anAct(c) for keeping safely the Public Records, passed inAccess to1838, gave the public, at the cost of one shilling, theand copying any specification atprivilege of readingtions.the Rolls Chapel, one of the three offices at whichwere then enrolled ; interests, however,specificationsexisted inimical to the cheapeningaccess to these documents,diminutionand theandfacilitatingwas a greatresultin the proportion of the specificationsand a great increasetwo officesfrom which the public were practically excluded. In1848 his lordship introduced a clause, in an Act(rf)enrolled at the Rolls Chapel,in the proportion enrolledat the otherrelating to the Court of Chancery, requiring all specificationsand disclaimers enrolledJanuary, 1849,totheafterbe eiu-oUed in one1stoffice,ofandmade for the convenience ofbut fears of a diminution of fees preventedthe privilege of copying a single extract being conceded to the public, and at the present day the publicare not permitted to make an extract even in pencilfurther concessions werethe public(i)Some;of the provisions of this acthave been extended and amended by subsequent acts, viz. 2 & 3 Vic, c. 67 ; 7 &8 Vic, c. 69. See Webster's Law andPractice of Patents, 3rd edit., p. 166.(c) 1 & 2 Vic, o. 94.See Law andPractice of Patents, 3rd edit., p. 173.(d) See 1 1c. 109Vic,;&12 Vic,Law andc.94;Pr., 184.12&13

; ;THE HISTOKT.5from any specification either at the Petty Bag or atthe Enrolment OiRces.In 1848 a Committee on the signet and privy seal -D- 1848.offices- two of the oifices through which patents for Signetinventions were required to pass " in order that the ""'«eeclerks thereof might not by any manner of meanshe defeated of any portion of their fees/' (e)— inquiredinto the practice of passing patents, and made severalrecommendations calculated to improve the systembut a Bill introduced in the session of 1850 into theHouse of Commons to carry out some of these recommendations was not prosecuted.The preparations for the approaching Great Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations had so effectuallyA. D. 18S0.aroused attention to the discreditable state of the lawsaffecting inventions in theandtoarts and manufactures,the inadequate protection for the kindredsubject of designs, that the public were prepared for agreat reform in the laws affecting these two subjects.On the 24th of June, 1850, the Earl Granville in- Extensiontroduced into the House of Lords the "Law of CopyAct "' "'right of Designs Amendment Bill;" the object, asstated in the preamble, being, to encourage the exhibition of works of art,by providing that such exhibition(certain conditions being complied with)defeat the copyright.should notThe enacting clausesof the Billextended to manufactures and inventions theretoforethe Subject of protection by patent, and would havebrought that class of inventions under the existingsystem of registration of designs.To this many obvious objections existed ; the systemof registration of designs, but recently established,showed many symptoms of itself requiring reformthe subjects, though kindred,had manydistinctivelanguageand technical terms theretofore unknown in connecfeatures(e)requiringregulationsdifferentSee statute 27 H.8, c.11;A.D. 1535-6;jLaw andPr.,,121.b2

;THE NEW PATENT LAW.tion with property either in designs or manufactureswere employed in the clauses these objections having been pointed out, all reference to inventions otherthan designs theretofore the subject of registrationwas omitted, and the Bill was confined to enablingthe subjects of copyright, as defined by the precedingDesigns Act, to be exhibited without prejudice to after:acquired copyright;itbeing distinctly understood onthe withdrawal of the other portions of the bill thatsimilar privileges should be extended to inventionsthe subject of patents at a sufiiciently early period inthe ensuing session to enable such inventions to beexhibited at the Great Exhibition without prejudicebe afterwards acquired.of whatever mightcontribute to the success of the approaching Exhibition had given rise to extravagant notions of theprotection to be afibrded to property in inventionsto letters patent toExtravagant notions as toinventors.A laudable enthusiasm in favourthe right of an inventor to property in his invention,whether a design or a manufacture, and the right toexclude all others from its adoption, were declared tobe natural and indefeasible ; many crude and unreasonable propositions connected with this subject obtainedthe sanction and support of names of high authority;and in the autumn of 1850, a " Bill to extend registration to inventions generally," was prepared, andprinted as suggestive of the views of the advocatesof the so-called indefeasibletellectual labour.toTheand natural rights of in-general scope of that Bill wasenable any person to acquire, by a simple act ofregistration, exclusive privileges in respect ofever he might choose tomakewhat-the subject of such re-system which would lead to a largeamount of useless invention and of profitless expenseand litigation ; a system pronounced on high authority as proper to be tried in order to put an end togistration, apatents altogether{J").evidence of Mr. Brunei( f) See(1836) before Select Committee of theHouse of Lords,Patent Bills.session 1851, on the

THE HISTORY.These extreme views foundlittlepractical inventors of the country;7favour with thethe working of theNon-ornamental or Utility Designs Act (6 & 7 Vict. c.65) had indicated some of the probable consequencesof such a system {g) ; and public attention was againdirected to improving the existing system of patents (A).Meetings were held in the autumn of 1850 at Suggestionsvarious places, which led to the formation of a United '" "tors.Association of Inventors, whose views were embodiedin twelve recommendations, which were agreedupon, and suggested as the basis of the proposed new,system,(i).A Bill prepared in accordance with these recommendations was prepared, printed, and circulated amongstthe members of the Association at the close of the year1850, and formed the model upon which the several Billsintroduced in the following session were founded ; allthe Bills contained the leading and cardinal featuresof the system sanctioned during the last session.At the commencement of the session of 1851,the Earl Granville, in pursuance of the understandingattheintoclose of thetheHouse ' - ? '-of Inven-preceding session, introduced " " ''*'of Lordsa Bill to enable invenat the forthcoming Greatto be exhibitedExhibition without prejudice to rights to be acquiredtionsThe Bill was referred to asuch exhibition.committee of the House of Lords, and theirlordships after hearing evidence on the probableafterselectoperation of registration of inventions generally, ac-cording to the system for the registration of designs,modified the Bill so as to keep distinct from each(y) See evidence before Select Committee of House of Lords, Session 1851,on the Designs Extension bill.(A) In Noyember 1850, the author of" An Outlinethese pages publishedScheme and Suggestions" for the amendment of the system ; the replies receivedfrom more than one hundred inventorsand manufacturers showed great unanimity as to what was required and wished for,and formed the basis of the Bills introduced in the session of 1851.(i) See evidence of R. H. Wyatt,Hon. Sec. of the United Inventors Association before the Select Committee ofthe House of Lords, 12th May, 1851.

THE NEW PATENT LAW.other the two methods of acquiring and protectingproperty in designs and inventions.The Bill somodified became " The Protection of Inventions Act,1851." The protection under that Act was granted onlybut the anticipated new patent system nothaving been sanctioned in the session of 1851, anAct was passed in 1852 extending the protection untilFebruary, 1853.for a year; ".,principles.The Protection of Inventions Act introduced severalnew principles of the greatest importance to inventors.Itenabled the inventor, on obtaining a certificate ofthe sufficiency of a description of his invention, to exhibit and publish it so as to obtain the assistance andjudgment of persons of skiU and capital without prejudice to any after acquired patent for such invention;itconstituted a distinct legislative recognition of pro-perty in inventions in the arts and manufactures;itgave an interest in that property from the date of theand it authorised the LordChancellor to cause the letters patent to be sealedapplication for protection;and bear dateas of thetration, thus affordingday of such provisional regisa precedent for the principlethat the legal right should date from the day of theapplication, unless justice to other parties requiredthat it should be post-dated (k).These principles,and the operation of that Act, were the subject of evidence before the committee on the Patent Bills, andthe New Patent Law embodies such as were appli-cable to the general system.TheProtection of Inventions Act came into opera-on its passing, on the 10th of Aprilbetween that day and the closing of the Exhi-tion immediately1851;was madeand granted in 615 cases ; the first certificatebeing registered on the 22nd of April, and the last onbition, application for provisional protectionin 691,the 16th of October(A);a very large proportion of those?ieepost, Act 14 Vict.,c. 8.

THE HISTORY.inventions being protected by persons to whom property in their labour and ingenuity would have beendenied under the existing patent system.In the administration of that Act frequent opportuwere aflforded of suggesting to applicants fornitiesWorking ofac"!"'" provisional protection that the supposed inventionpossessed no feature either of novelty or of utility,and was not worth further prosecution; in no lessthan 77 cases out of 691 applications such suggestionswere acquiesced in; thus affording conclusive evidenceof the importance of and of the benefit to be conferredby protecting inventors against their own ignorance.The majority of the persons acquiescing in such suggestions were not of the poorest class; they werepersonswho had taken up some schemeforeign toeducation or business, and who could havefound money for a patent which would have beentheireither invalid or utterly worthless, but which whenonce obtained they might in many cases have beentempted to maintain even by litigation (Z).The injustice of a system of protection for the rich Injustice ofto the exclusion of the ingenious but poor inventor, P*' "' '3"was muchinsistedon in the course of theevi-dence before the Select Committee of the House ofLords on the measure just adverted to (m) ; the defectsof the existing patent system generally, and of the sys-tem of the registration of designs, and the operation ofthe act of 1835 (commonly called Lord Brougham'sAct), were incidentally discussed in considerable detail.The mostfavourable opinions were expressed as „Froc6edand successful working of ings in theto the beneficial operation(J) The temptation afforded under theoldsystemtoadvise the taking out patentswithout regard to the novelty or utilityof the invention, was one of the cryingevils of that system. If some agents shoulddecline to solicit such a patent otherswould be found to encourage it. Theseevils can only be effectually checked bya system analogous to that pursued underthe Protection of Inventions Act ; caseswill occur in which an inventor will nottake advice, but this is not usually thecase.(m) See evidence of C. May, A. V.Newton, and Professor Woodcroft, beforeHouse of Lords,13thof March, 1851.

10LorTTHE NEW PATENT LAW. ' * ' * * * P ' disclaiming and ofextending the term of tlie patent ; and the importanceof supplying the omissions referred to in the discussions on that measure when in the House of Commons(w)was brought prominently before the committee.Theresult of this inquiry coupled with thegeneral feeling on the part of the public as to thenecessity of the revision of the whole patent system,Two Patent led to the introduction into the House of Lords of""" i s the One on the 24th day of March by Lorddueed"—Brougham, the other on the 10th day of April byEarl Granville both founded on the same generalprinciples, differing only in minor details.The twoBills so introduced, with petitions to the House of—Lords prayingfor thereform of the patent laws, werereferred to a select committee,and numerous witnesses,representing various interests, and almost every classin this country and in other countries, were examined,and the evidence was directed to the question of thegeneral policy or impolicy of patents, as well as to thedetails of the specific measures before the committee(o).The general effect of the evidence being infavour of some of the provisions of each Bill, and suggestive of provisions not contained in either Bill, athird Bill amalgamating the two, and containing suchwas introduced by the Earl Granville onthe 23rd day of June, and having passed the Houseprovisions,of Lords was sent dovni to theHouseofCommons onthe 4th day of July.Theadvocates of the existing system, and oppo-(n) See ante 3.(o) It may be necessary to warn theunprofessional reader of that evidencenot to be misled by the form of questionsand answers ; many of the witnesseswere wholly unaware of the particularviews which suggested the questions, andthe result has been that several of thewitnesses have been surprised on pernsing their evidence in print, at the coun-tenance which some of their answersappear to give to the views against thepolicy of patents which suggested manyof the questions. The print of the evidence presents a curious confirmation ofthe well-known rule of practice beforeour legal tribunals, that a witness is notto be led or as it were cross-examinedbyhisowncounsel,

THE HISTOEY.11nents ofall reform and of patents generally, were Proceednot idle during the successive stages of the Bill in theHouse ofHouse of Commons ; alterations were made in the Commons.form of theand a clause found its way into thewhich would have defeated one of themain provisions of the measure, by letting in opposition before obtaining provisional protection, and thusthe beneficial operation of immediate provisional protection, which had been practically tried with the mostsatisfactory results under the Protection of InventionsAct during the pendency of the Patent Bill in theHouse of Lords, and which had been the subject ofevidence before that committee, would have beenThe Bill, as amended by thevirtually defeated.House of Commons, was returned to the House ofLords only the evening of the day before the close ofthe session, and it being impossible to reprint theamendments for the consideration of their lordships,the measure was necessarily postponed.Concurrent with the Patent Bills, there was Appointpending in parliament a measure for simplifying the " ' ' „appointment to offices and the manner of passinggrants under the Great Seal, introduced in accordancewith the recommendation of the Committee of 1848on the signet and privy seal offices; the subject ofpatents for inventions was expressly excepted from itsBill,altered Billoperation, butwhenitappeared that the Patent Billwould be lost for want of time to carry it through theHouse of Lords, the exception was struck out, andthree of the useless stages of the old system werethereby abolished (p) ; but the other inherent defectsin the system, which it was the object of the Patentas, the want of any protection untilBill to obviate—the actual sealing of the patent;the inadequate powerand tribunal of the law officers ; the caveat systemdelay and obstruction by interested opponents(p) See 14 and i5 Vict.,c.82;Law and;theto thePractice of Patents, p. 211.,

8THE NEW PATENT LAW.12progress of grantsthe triplication of fees for distinct;proceedings and patents for the three countries ; theimpossibility of obtaining information as to the subject of patents in progress or notwholly unprovidedspecified— werefor.The small modicum of reform effected by the aboveAct was represented by the opponents of the comprehensive scheme of reform which had been lost underthe circumstances just stated, as sufficient, coupledwith the general jurisdiction of the lawofficers intheaU that was necessary, andwere made and rules suggestedthree countries, to effectvarious propositionswiththisview; but the lawofficerswere not thusdiverted from prosecuting the comprehensive measurewhich had been so fuUy explained and strongly recommended by the Attorney-General, Sir A. E. Cockburn, on moving in the House of Commons the secondreading of the Bill(r).In the session of 1852, Lord Brougham, on the 13thof February, and Lord Colchester, on the 30th of March,introduced a Bill, in form substantially the same asthe Bill returned from the House of Commons atthe close of the preceding session; with the ex-Bills of1852.ception of twoimportantof LordsorCommonsinwhich hadby the Houseclauses («)been deliberately rejected or adoptedthepreceding session.were referred to a Select Committee ; the Bill of Lord Colchester was sent downto the House of Commons, and referred to a SelectCommittee to consider its provisions ; some amendments were made in Committee ; the House of Commons adhered to their former decision, and after aconference between the two Houses, the BiU, asreturned from the House of Commons, was agreedThe twoOnBillsthe 25th July, 1851. See 1 11534, and pos .House of Lords was of(s) Theo{ inion that the publication or use ofan invention in foreign parts should havethe same effect on the validity of a(r)Hansard,p.patent as prior publication or use in thiscountry; also, [that the colonies shouldnot be included in the grant for theUnited Kingdom. The House of Co

CornellUniversityLibrary KD1369.