Page images



Chicago, Ill., June 27, 1951.

Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 3,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BRYSON: My name is Charles D. Magnesen. I am president of the Magneseal Co. We are engaged in the manufacture of food caps and resealable bottle caps, and have employed as high as 48 people.

I am emphatically in favor of a patent-extension law such as H. R. 323, because it will give me a chance to secure the benefits of a 17-year patent which I thought I was getting when I obtained my various patents.

I have not been able to use certain of these patents for the following reasons: During the last war, the Government refused to let us manufacture two-piece caps for reseal for bottles and cans for food. Consequently, we wish to inform you that we only had approximately 12 years' patent protection, whereas we should have had 17 years.

Kindly do all possible to have this patent protection extended for us as well as other firms in a similar position. Yours very truly,



Port Huron, Mich, July 5, 1951.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BRYSON: This is to advise you that it is our opinion that the legislation now being considered by the House Subcommittee on Patents in regard to the extension of the original terms of patents would be no more than fair to the patent owners. This legislation has as its purpose the extension of patents where the use, exploitation, and where loss in revenue was prevented or delayed by reason of Government restrictions during World War II.

It is our hope that you will decide in favor of the bill considered most just of those that are now pending before the subcommittee.

Yours very truly,


J. W. LEIGHTON, President.

GILLETT & EATON, INC., Lake City, Minn., June 26, 1951.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BRYSON: This letter has reference to the bills introduced in the House dealing with the extension of patents where the use of the patent was restricted or suspended entirely during the war and where use has been restricted since the declaration of a national emergency December 16, 1950.

Personally, I do not like to ask for favors for business or for any special legislation. I think being left alone would benefit business the most. However, there is no question but that the curtailment of production of certain patented articles has resulted in a loss of income to patent owners and has been a serious handicap to development work.

It appears that provisions should be made for granting extensions of patents on articles where normal use of the patent was in any way impaired. I believe that H. R. 323 and H. R. 3231 merit earnest consideration, and I hope that Congress will work out the proper legislation to take care of the situation.

Yours very truly,

Copy to Hon. August H. Andresen.


Vice President.


Union City, N. J., June 20, 1951.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BRYSON: We understand that Subcommittee No. 3 of the Judiciary, of which you are chairman, is holding hearings on bills H. R. 323, 3231, and 4054, relating to the extension of patents.

We are particularly interested in the enactment of H. R. 323. Our company owns basic patents for voting machines, and during World War II our licensee had to suspend the manufacture thereof by reason of orders of the War Production Board, with a result that there was a suspension of payment of royalties for a period of about 4 years. At the present time our licensee is again confronted with a similar situation due to the restriction on the use of certain essential materials.

We respectfully ask that this bill receive your favorable consideration.
Respectfully yours,



House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

A. Y. DODGE Co., Rockford, Ill., June 22, 1951.

DEAR MR. REED: I am writing you in reference to the pending bills, H. R. 323, H. R. 3231, H. R. 4054. I am in favor of the passage of whichever one of these bills seems the most likely to pass, for the following reasons:

If there ever was a "forgotten man," I believe he is the inventor. If he invents something extremely novel, its popularity arrives after the period of patent life has expired. If he invents anything with less novelty, the extent of his contribution is questioned.

If the professional inventor wishes to sell a patent, he cannot treat the income as capital gain, but if a speculator sells a patent, he can treat the income as capital gain. The inventors of this country not only deserve, but actually need, any support and improvement they can get from the Government in order to make the business of inventing financially profitable.

If you would like a further explanation of one side of this situation, I would refer you to Capt. George N. Robillard's article, Are We Stifling the Inventors? which appeared in the June 9 issue (distributed on June 6) of the Saturday Evening Post. This article set forth the neglect of the inventor from the standpoint of national defense. A similar article could well be written on the neglect

of the inventor and its effect on national growth. Yours very truly,



House Subcommittee No. 8 of the Judiciary,

H. H. ROBERTSON CO., Pittsburgh, Pa., June 21, 1951.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. REED: Patent law modification bills Nos. H. R. 323, H. R. 3231, and H. R. 4054 have come to our attention.

This letter is being written with the purpose of impressing on you our feeling that modification of the patent law as indicated by the proposed bills would be a fair and just procedure. Positive action of this nature should be taken. The promotion, exploitation, and development of certain of our patented products has been seriously impaired, both currently and during the period of World War II, by governmental restrictions which have affected not only raw-material supplies but also end usage of the finished product.

Because of the fact that present restrictions placed upon industry are almost as impairing to progress in the exploitation of patents as were the restrictions of World War II, any bill on this subject should also consider this current period

of emergency as worthy of credit for addition to the useful life of a patent. The above is respectfully submitted with the request that it be given careful consideration during the current hearings on these bills.

Very truly yours,


Vice President, Research and Development.


NEW YORK 22, N. Y., January 22, 1951.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. REPRESENTATIVE: Last September, at my request, you sent me copy of H. R. 9366, which you introduced. This morning I noted in 88 USPQ of January 20, 1951, that you had introduced H. R. 323, similar to H. R. 9366 of the Eighty-first Congress.

I am deeply interested in extension of patents, as I became owner of my late husband's patent 1,728,660, granted in September 1929. This patent covered a weather stripping and was licensed as to rubber rights to a manufacturer who made and distributed it in a satisfactory way. (I might add that the patent was already 5 years old when the said manufacturer was licensed thereunder.) In mid-1942 I received a letter from the licensee stating that the War Production Board had restricted them in the manufacture of the product due to the rubber situation except for war items, and that, therefore, their report to me for the second quarter of 1942 would cover only the stock they had on hand, etc. Thereupon I sold my small cottage in rural Connecticut so I could return to the city to seek a position.

I contended then, and still contend, that my patent, granted by the Government for a term of 17 years, was not permitted its full term by the Government to be used "to make, sell," etc., thereunder. I have no quarrel with the Government as to the stark need for the use of the rubber which would have gone into the production of the product, but do maintain that I should have been compensated therefor just as those whose buildings or other property taken by the Government were compensated, all in accordance with article V of the 10 original amendments of the Constitution, since, while the Government did not appropriate my physical property, it did appropriate, by suppression of the patent, my rights thereunder.

I give you herewith a list of the receipts from 1937, for the propose of judging that I was indeed impaired by reason of World War II :

Royalties received in 1937, $2,212.46; 1938, $2,012.91; 1939, $2,260.43; 1940, $2,894.85; 1941, $3,299.83; 1942, $1,029.19; 1943, $178.32; 1944, $2,336.20, (my sole income that year, of which $215.79 for first three quarters and $2,120.41 for fourth quarter, when synthetic rubber was permitted to be used, received in February 1945); 1945, $7,148.30; 1946, (9 months), $7,597.49 (patent "expired" September 17).

Under the terms of my late husband's will. I, as administrix c. t. a., distributed 23 percent to another beneficiary. Also however, taxes took a sharp upturn!

Therefore, I claim a 2- and 1-year year extension of my patent so that I may make up the loss of moneys I suffered by reason of the Government's having curtailed the patent rights granted, for a period from April 1, 1942, to September 30, 1944. The extension, therefore, claimed from September 17, 1946, to March 17, 1949.

As I read your bill H. R. 9366 (I have no copy of your bill H. R. 323), I believe it covers expired patents.

(I do not need to point out that, although I have no criticism of my licensee, as it would have continued to report under the terms of the license agreement, it has had the benefit of 21⁄2 years' royalty-free manufacture, whereas I have suffered greatly financially.)

I sincerely trust that you will be successful in having this bill enacted into law, so that those of us who have suffered financial losses through curtailed patent rights by the Government may have justice rendered them.

Very sincerely yours,

BERTHA W. BURDINE (Mrs. C. C. Burdine).

Re H. R. 323, 3231, 4054.

Boston, Mass., June 21, 1951.


House Subcommittee on Patents,

House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. REED: Having recently learned of the above bills, we desire to be recorded as being in favor of action similar in intent to the bills under consideration.

We are a "small business"-less than 50 employees-yet we have developed items that were patentable and in general use. In one particular instance we developed a sputum cup for use in the armed services, who paid no royalties either direct or through a competitor whom we licensed on a royalty-free basis. Furthermore, the War Assets Administration disposed of their "surplus” sputum cups in direct competition to us and at prices excessively less than cost of production.

We therefore feel some action such as is contemplated by the above bills is entirely worthy of your approval.



SCULLY SIGNAL CO., Cambridge, Mass., July 6, 1951.

Subject: House bills, H. R. 323, 3231, 4054.


House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE REED: This letter is addressed to you as a member of the House of Representatives subcommittee No. 3.

The following is a quotation from United States of America v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation (289 U. S. 178; 17 USPQ 154):

"In consideration of its disclosure and the consequent benefit to the community the patent is granted. An exclusive enjoyment is guaranteed him for 17 years, etc."

We have created "the benefit to the community" which warrants enjoyment of patent protection for 17 years. As evidence of this "benefit to the community," methods of fuel-oil delivery which we developed are now being utilized by over 1,500 fuel oil companies with a saving of over $10,000,000 annually— which saving ultimately benefits the consumer.

However, government regulations will have substantially reduced the period under which we effectively enjoyed patent protection. During World War II, we were nearly forced out of business by restrictions. In 1943 we were reduced

to three employees.

We believe that in equity to ourselves and the many thousands of others whose pioneering has meant so much to the American economy the effective term of 17 years should be restored. This can only be accomplished by extending the patent expiration dates in accordance with the underlying intent of the three bills now before you.

Very truly yours,

Re Patent Extension Bills


F. P. SCULLY, President.

NEW YORK, N. Y., June 21, 1951.

House Office Building 25, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. REED: I have received from the National Patent Council a brief abstract of H. R. 323 which you have introduced, as well as H. R. 3231 and H. R. 4054.

I realize that there is justification for efforts to extend patents, the exploitation of which was impaired or rendered impossible by the war. It seems to me, however, that these proposed bills approach the matter from the wrong aspect. In all the bills elaborate provisions are proposed for securing an extension as a

result of administrative proceedings in the Patent Office which would require the payment of fees, the submission of extensive and voluminous documents, long, tedious controversy, appeals, and the like. This procedure might approach the complex procedure necessary to obtain the patent in the first place. And if a volume of such work were presented the personnel would be swamped and intolerable delays ensue. Quite likely the "old soldier" would die ere the hearings ceased.

The legislation of the proposed type would, I fear, make a happy hunting ground in which a practice akin to ambulance chasing would grow up. It is quite likely that a barrage of literature akin to that spawned by the advertising patent agents and the gentry who circularize new patentees offering to promote the sale of their patents, would be aimed at the 420,000 patentees having patents issued between July 1934 and September 1945. Furthermore, each and every time an owner who suffered real or fancied loss of patent income, due to the war, would be put to tremendous expense for each individual application for extension of the particular patent involved. The Patent Office is, I believe, not properly equipped to process such a mass of material. Without an increase in personnel, regular service-now far behind--would suffer. The tremendous effort would in a large measure be wasted, except in the relatively few cases where there was real merit, and substantial damage really ensued.

No matter what is done by the proposed procedures in the Patent Office resulting in an ex parte extension, the whole issue will be open for redetermination in the event of litigation, certainly when relative to infringement in the Federal courts and quite likely in the State courts in suits on contract. I believe one would have to be most naive not to expect that any extensions would be vigorously attacked should the extended patent be litigated.

There was a period of, say, approximately 3 years, commencing some time after May 27, 1941, (proposed by H. R. 4054) and continuing some time prior to the November 4, 1945, date proposed in that bill, during which the conditions were such that relief might be proper. Inasmuch as the grant of the patent is delayed for a substantial period after the filing date and relatively little interference with production occured until well into the fall of 1941, it would seem that a 3-year extension would in general suffice.

I would, therefore, suggest that you and your committee consider legislation with a view of providing, subject to limitations to be set forth in the act, a flat extension of 3 years to all patents granted on applications filed prior to some arbitrary date, such as September 1, 1944, and not already expired. Legislation such as that proposed would be simple, and could contain a satisfactory statement of the conditions prerequisite to obtaining a valid and enforceable extension and could place directly on the patentee who wished to avail himself of the benefit of the 3-year extension the burden of establishing in a satisfactory manner that the facts existed. Such an arrangement would at once shortcircuit or bypass the bureaucratic handling of patent extensions by an administrative body, and avoid all such consideration of extensions with respect to patents which could have no added value if they were extended. It would place the settlement of the issue in the hands of the court where controversy arose, or would justify negotiation of private agreements for payment of royalties or sale of patents as though the extensions were justified.

At the present time there are many thousand owners of individual patents who may be led to believe that it would be to their advantage to have their patent extended, only to find out that long before the patent would expire with a 17-year period it has lost all value. The value of such 20-year patent would be automatically completely discounted.

Adverse effects of war conditions on patent property may arise in cases of widely diverse nature, for example: building construction, automobile manufacture, and the manufacture of electric toys, were banned. Such were most adversely affected, and doubtless most reasonable, judicially minded persons would agree that these were most entitled to extensions. Some arts could have a small output while others operated at nearly full capacity and still others had a boom operation.

If all the patents were extended as I suggest, the apparent benefits accruing would, to a large extent, magically disappear by passing of time, like fog in the morning, while some others have speculative benefits and others real benefit.

The hazard of opposition to the extension in any particular case can well be an ordinary business risk not much different from that involved in ordinary patent validity and infringement controversies.

« PreviousContinue »