EXTENSION OF PATENTS HELD BY VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II

AUGUST 8. 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BRYSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 4692]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4692) providing for the extension of the term of certain patents of persons who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during World War II, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 1, line 9, insert after "date" and before the comma "and which is still owned by him"

Page 2, strike lines 3 through 7, and insert in lieu: " (b) who, between December 7, 1941, and the date of the termination of his service but not later than the date of enactment of this Act, was not receiving income from said patent or patented invention or discovery; or whose income therefrom was substantially reduced as a result of his said service or because of the war,".

STATEMENT

The broad purpose of the bill is to provide for an extension of the life of patents issued to veterans of World War II, on the theory that their service would have in many cases precluded them an opportunity to exploit their patents during that period.

Section 1 of the bill would permit a person who served honorably in the military or naval forces of the United States for all or part of the period between December 7, 1941, and September 2. 1945, and to whom had been issued or who has continuously owned since a time prior to September 2, 1945, a patent whose original term had not expired before the latter date, to apply to the Commissioner of Patents

for an extension of the term of his patent equal to twice that portion of his military or naval service between the dates of December 7, 1941, and September 2, 1945, during which his patent was in force.

Section 2 explains the method of making application to the Commissioner of Patents, the fee required, and the information and documentation to be submitted when making the application. It also provides for the succession of rights where the veteran patentee dies or becomes mentally incompetent.

Section 3 provides for the examination of the application by the Commissioner of Patents, the publication of notice of such application, the filing of opposition within 45 days after publication of notice, the hearing on the opposition, the remedy of the unsuccessful applicant by appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the ultimate issuance of the extension by the Commissioner of Patents, and publication of notice of the extension.

Section 4 provides that a false statement in the verified application will constitute a valid defense in a suit by the patentee for infringement occurring within the period of extension. The section precludes the patentee benefited by an extension from making any claim against the United States for the period of the extension, and preserves the status quo of the rights of the United States as if such patent had not been extended. This section also protects the innocent persons who might unwittingly and legally be manufacturing a patented invention after the expiration of its original term and then finds that the extension of the period creates a technical infringement. In such cases the continued manufacture is permitted, subject only to the payment of a reasonable royalty.

The bill intentionally does not define a reasonable royalty, for the circumstances would vary and no yardstick can be devised that would not result in manifest inequities. Rather, the precise quantum of the term will be left to the sound discretion of the courts, and it is not without precedent for statutes to vest the courts with such discretion.

Hearings were held by a subcommittee of this committee. At the conclusion of the hearings, the subcommittee prepared and had introduced a clean bill, H. R. 4692.

Representations were made and were seriously considered by the committee that the benefits of such legislation should inure to all patentees who suffered losses by reason of being unable through shortages of materials or other reasons during the war to prosecute and exploit their patent rights. The committee, however, felt that to provide relief for all such persons who suffered losses in this manner would be to overlook the many thousands of persons in other walks of life who suffered grievous and irreplaceable losses in their fortunes because of the circumstances of war. For most of such persons no governmental relief has been or could reasonably be afforded, for such conditions cannot reasonably be considered by thinking persons the responsibility of the Government to restore.

As to veterans of World War II, however, the committee could perceive a reasonable and logical distinction, for in these cases the circumstances of the removal of the patentees from the scenes of their livelihoods and occupations, and the involuntary (in most cases) nature of their having military or naval duties thrust upon them, effectively deprived them of their freedom to exploit their patent rights even if materials, etc., had been available. Of course, there

were many whose patents produced a steady and undiminished income during their absence in service, but, these the bill does not benefit. The bill is not intended to deny relief to veterans merely upon a showing that they would not have been able to secure materials for the manufacture of their inventions even if they had not been in the service.

The act of May 31, 1928 (35 U. S. C. 40a-40d), provided similar patent-extension privileges to veterans of World War I. The reported bill is similar in essential respects to the earlier law. The bill calls for no additional appropriations, and in some measure makes restitution for the sacrifices of wartime service.

1st Session

No. 1215

USE, FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, CERTAIN LAND IN NEW MEXICO

AUGUST 8, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. PETERSON, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5620)

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5620) permitting the use, for public purposes, of certain land in Hot Springs, N. Mex., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

The purpose of this bill is to permit the State of New Mexico to use block 95 in the town site of Hot Springs for the erection and maintenance of buildings or other structures for public or municipal purposes.

The act of April 25, 1948, authorized the conveyance of this tract of land to the State of New Mexico with a proviso for forfeiture in the event the tract was used for purposes other than for the "erection and maintenances of bath houses, hotels, or other improvements for the accommodation of the public."

It now develops that the tract is no longer needed for bathhouses and similar purposes but is badly needed as a site for municipal buildings or structures for public use.

It is the opinion of this committee that the State of New Mexico should be permitted to put the tract in question to its highest possible use under existing conditions.

Pertinent comments from the report of the Department of the Interior are as follows:

I have no objection to the enactment of H. R. 5620.

Section 10 of the act of April 25, 1928 (45 Stat., pt. 2, 1728) reads as follows: "That there is hereby granted to the State of New Mexico the tract in block 95 of the town site of Hot Springs, New Mexico, marked 'Reserve' on the plat