Ia.nuary 2$, 1 9 19] 



NATURE 



407 



.'4 and 27 of the Act. It would prefer to see 

 section 27 ("Revocation of patents worked out- 

 side the United Kingdom") repealed, and section 

 24 ("Compulsory licences and revocation ") altered 

 ting thai (i) petitions for grants of "com- 

 pulsory licences" should be made to the Comp- 

 troller oi Patents with a right of appeal to the 

 courts, and (!i| provisions enabling patents to be 

 revoked should be cancelled. It holds the view 

 that it is "wrong and illogical that letters patent 

 should tie on the ground of non-work- 



pl with the consent of the owner. The 

 only justification for revoking a patent is thai i1 



is invalid. " 



The committee also expresses the opinion that 

 "the possibility of revocation on the ground of 

 non-working is an incentive to blackmailers, and 

 greatly detracts from the value of a patent for 

 financial support." It believes that the alterna- 

 tive proposed by it would best meet the interests 

 of invention and industry. 



I h. 1 ommittee disapproves of the provisions of 

 the new section 38 a, which prevent articles in- 

 tended for food or for medicinal or surgical pur- 

 poses, etc., being patentable. It is pointed out 

 that the effect of the new section would be to 

 deter inventors and capitalists from devoting their 

 time and money to the development of industries 

 which are admittedly in great need of stimulation 

 —industries, too, in which this country is notori- 

 ously behindhand. 



The committee in express terms approves of 

 the provisions contained in clauses 5, 8, 9, and 15 

 of the Bill (see ante). Its views on some of the 

 other matters dealt with in the report are as fol- 

 lows : -The term of the patent should be fixed 

 nteen years; the period within which the 

 complete specification must be filed should be 

 extended; the procedure in relation to the grant 

 and sealing of patents should be improved; dis- 

 appointment is expressed that no substantial 

 alteration is made in the Bill for binding the 

 Crown, and the suggestion is made that, in cases 

 of user by the Crown of an invention, the patentee, 

 in default of an express agreement on the subject, 

 should be entitled to apply to the High Court to 

 adjudicate upon his claim and to determine the 

 terms in respect of such user; the prescribed fees 

 for a full-term patent should be reduced, in view 

 of the large annual surpluses of the Patent Office 

 budget. 



Finally, the committee advocates that a new 

 tribunal should be set up to deal with litigation 

 involving scientific and technical questions; a 

 similar proposal has been made by the Federation 

 of British Industries. The committee acknow- 

 ledges the great ability of the judges of the 

 Chancery Division and their willingness to try 

 scientific cases, but it points out that "the views 

 of the judges as to what is invention has varied 

 1.1 a degree which has made it nearly, if not quite, 

 impossible for manufacturers to obtain definite 

 opinions as to the chances of success in patent 

 disputes." It is urged that "if industry is to 

 flourish to the fullest extent there must exist 

 NO. 2569, VOL. I02] 



machinery for adjudicating effectivelv upon actions 

 involving technical matters." 



The question of the creation of a new tribunal 

 to deal with patent actions and kindred cases has 

 been before the Bar Council during the past year; 

 the executive committee ol the Council received 

 a deputation from the Law Society on the subject 

 111 January, [918, and afterwards appointed a 

 special committee to consider the matter. 1 his 

 M>erial ( ommittee has held several meetings and 

 presented a report, which is now under the con- 

 sideration of the Bar Council ; it is understood that 

 the members of this committee, who are all well- 

 known King's Counsel, are in favour of the pro- 

 posal to create a new tribunal for the trial of 

 patent actions and of cases involving great tech- 

 nical or engineering details. 



There is much in the report of Mr. Mordey's 

 committee with which those whose interests parti- 

 cularly centre in Patent Law will heartily agree; to 

 many of the recommendations of this committee 

 effect can be given without difficulty or further 

 elaboration. The same, however, is not the case as 

 regards the proposal to establish a special tribunal 

 to deal with actions involving technical matters. 

 The proposal to create such a tribunal is worthy 

 of all support ; however, its constitution and the 

 field of selection from which the judge to preside 

 over it is to be obtained are questions which will 

 require very careful consideration. It must be 

 borne in mind that no single judge, however ver- 

 satile, can possibly be expected to possess a suffi- 

 ciently wide range of scientific and technical 

 knowledge to enable him to cope successfully with 

 the great variety of matters which would find their 

 way into a court of the kind in contemplation. 

 The proper solution would be to create a per- 

 manent statutory panel of technical assessors as 

 an adjunct to the proposed new tribunal. 

 Assessors suitably chosen from this panel, in 

 accordance with the requirements of any particular 

 case, should sit in the proposed court to assist 

 the judge trying an action by elucidating the 

 technical aspects of the case. 



A belief widely prevails that patent protection 

 is valueless in this country ; it is the existence of 

 such a belief which points to the urgent need for 

 a reform of our Patent Law ; and it is essential 

 that it should be recognised that no reform of our 

 Patent Law will be satisfactory which does not 

 include a revision of the law of novelty and the 

 practice of examination founded on that law. 

 Lender the Statute of Monopolies novelty was con- 

 fined to "prior user " within the Realm, and the 

 patentee was granted his privilege, not qua- "in- 

 ventor," but qua " institutor, " or importer of a 

 manufacture new as regards practice within the 

 Realm. It is essential that the position of the 

 "institutor " should be now reaffirmed, not only 

 in the Act, but also in the grant and petition. 



Further, it must be borne in mind that not only 

 have the special interests of the inventor and of 

 the "institutor" or capitalist to be adequately 

 protected by legislation, but also those of the 

 consumer and of the Crown, as the agent of the 



