Page images
PDF
EPUB

PATENT PRACTICES OF THE

OF MICHIGAN

JAN 20 1960

MAIN
READING ROOM

GOVERNMENT PATENTS BOARD

PRELIMINARY REPORT

OF THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 53

47153

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1959

PURCHASED THROUGH
DOC. EX. PROJECT

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee
OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina
THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas
JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
JOHN A. CARROLL, Colorado

THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska

KENNETH B. KEATING, New York

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming, Chairman

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin

ROBERT L. WRIGHT, Chief Counsel
JOHN C. STEDMAN, Associate Counsel
STEPHEN G. HAASER, Chief Clerk

FOREWORD

This report on the operation of the Government Patents Board indicates the lack of coordination among Government agencies that now exists in the handling of inventions by employees. The members of the Board have not even met since November 9, 1956, and the Budget Bureau has not yet acted upon the Chairman's legislative recommendations, intended to resolve this problem.

The report was prepared by Clarence M. Dinkins of the subcommittee staff under the supervision of Robert L. Wright, chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, as part of the subcommittee's study of the U.S. patent system, conducted pursuant to Senate Resolution 53 of the 86th Congress, 1st session. It is the fifth of a series dealing with the patent practices of various agencies of the Federal Government. The purpose and scope of these reports is more fully described in the annual report of the subcommittee issued on March 9, 1959, on pages 5 and 6.

At the time the subcommittee's annual report was prepared it was not contemplated that a separate report on the Government Patents Board would be issued. However, upon further investigation it was determined that a report on the current status of the Board and the work of its Chairman would be essential to a complete understanding of agency patent practices. In the case of most Government agencies, when the Government obtains less than a complete assignment of the patent on an employee's invention, the decision of the agency concerned is automatically reviewed by the Chairman of this Board, pursuant to the Executive order which created the Board.

Among other things, the report shows that during the calendar years 1950 through 1958 the Chairman of the Government Patents Board reversed the agencies' determinations 116 times, and in 97 of these 116 cases the employee's interest was increased. Although the Chairman obviously entertains a more liberal view of the employee's rights than some of the agencies, the Chairman's decisions in individual cases have never been published and are not circulated among lawyers or the general public. There is, therefore, no means readily available for an appraisal by an employee or his attorney of the extent and character of the difference in viewpoint between the Chairman and the employee's agency. While the Chairman has indicated that any employee or his attorney may have access to any particular decision in which he may be interested, there is no way of knowing without examining all of them, which of the Chairman's 2,347 decisions may be pertinent to his case.

The report reveals an urgent need for legislative action to resolve policy differences among the members of the Board. The State Department, for example, does not approve of the neglect of foreign patent rights that has apparently become standard practice in most. agencies. The Defense agencies, and what may be called public

service agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, seem to be deeply divided as to how employee inventions should be handled. Nothing to resolve these conflicts has been done by administrative order or by legislation. However, it is hoped that a helpful recommendation from the Budget Bureau on this matter will be available in the near future.

i

JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate. OCTOBER 30, 1959.

1..

« PreviousContinue »