Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/231

 198

The chairman of the committee was Sir Edward Fry, a retired judge of the HighCourt, and among its members were Lord Alverstone, the present Lord Chief Justice, and Mr. Fletcher Moulton, K. C, who is the leader of the counsel who are most fre quently engaged in patent litigation. It is well known to those who are versed in patent law that the practice in this country has occupied, so far as the grant of letters patent is concerned, an intermediate position between two extremes. In certain countries, including France, a patent imports little more than that it has been registered, and the certificate expressly states that it con veys no official guarantee as to its novelty. In the United States, Austria and Germany, a patent is granted only after a rigorous ex amination is made as to novelty, and conse quently when it is issued it is of some value. In this country the rule, as it now stands, is that unless there is prima facie some appear ance of identity in the patent claimed with some prior existing patent, the Comptroller will seal the patent. The Solicitor General, to whom an appeal lies from the Comptroller, has laid it down as a principle to be followed, that where the matter of identity is much in doubt it is better to run the risk of putting the party opposing the grant to the costs of making out his case in some ulterior proceed ings, than to withhold the seal from the patent in the first instance. In a well-known case, Sir Edward Clarke, when Solicitor Gen eral, said that having regard to the fact that by allowing the issue of a patent he did not close the matter, but left it open to the oppo nent to challenge in a court of law the valid

ity of the patent, he did not think he ought to refuse a patent to be sealed unless he was satisfied that no jury could reasonably come to a decision in favor of the applicant. The new bill provides that where an ap plication for a patent has been made, and a complete specification has been deposited, the examiner, in addition to ascertaining whether the nature of the invention has been fairly described, and the application, specifition and drawings have been prepared in the prescribed manner (as now required), shall make a further investigation to ascertain whether the invention claimed has been wholly or in part claimed by any previously published application within fifty years past. If he finds that there has been a prior claim within the period named, the applicant must be informed, and he will then be permitted to file an amended specification. The Comp troller, if satisfied as to the amendment or disclaimer, will seal the patent or not as he deems proper. From his decision an appeal will eral. be,The as new at present, act specifically to the Solicitor provides Genthat the investigations and reports required by the act shall not be held in any way to guar antee the validity of any patent. It is further and most usefully provided that an invention shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only of its publication in a specifi cation deposited in any Patent Office pursu ant to an application made not less than fifty years before the new application. These provisions, which will come into effect on the first of January next, will be of consid erable interest to American inventors. Stuff Gown.