66 



gaged in experiments to perfect it, no suggestions from an employe, not amounting to 

 a new method or arrangement, which in itself is a complete invention, is sufficient to 

 deprive the employer of the exclusive property in the perfected improvements. But 

 where the suggestions go to make up a perfect and complete machine, embracing the 

 substance of all that is embodied in the patent subsequently issued to the party to 

 whom the suggestions were made, the patent is invalid, because the real invention or 

 discovery belongs to another," and cases cited. 



Under the third head it is unnecessary to comment, for the thing patented no.t being 

 new, the patent is invalid. 



IV. 



REMEDY. 



The possession by -Mr. Swenson of this patent has a serious and damaging effect on 

 the progress of the manufacture of sugar from sorghum cane in this country. It is a 

 cloud on the title of the people of this country to make use of a discovery which the 

 Government has at public expense made. Cougress, in authorizing the expending of 

 $225,000 to promote this manufacture, was mindful of its great importance and the 

 benefits to arise from utilizing sorghum cane, which could be grown over an immense 

 area of this country, and make valuable thousands of acres of land, and at the same 

 time cause the production of the home supply of sugar. 



This new enterprise has received a damaging blow, and it is desirable that the law 

 department of the Government should take all necessary steps to protect this enter- 

 prise, to remove the cloud that to-day prevents the free use of this manufacture as 

 perfected by the Department of Agriculture, and secure to the people the full benefit 

 of all its works. 



It is suggested that where a patent has been improperly obtained by a person em- 

 ployed by the Government to carry on experiment for discoveries made in the course 

 of the experiments, the patentee may be restrained by injunction from appropriating 

 to his own use any of the rights granted by the patent. This is the view as held by 

 Attorney-General Gushing in an opinion to be found in volume 7, Opinions Attorneys- 

 General, page 656. 



