REPORT OF THE COUNCIL. — APPENDIX II. llV 



means prescribed by general orders or general rules under this Act," there is 

 nothing to render it certain that the " prescribed time " may not be so extended 

 ss to enable opposition to be made after the complete specification is published, as 

 it must be at the end of nine months, at the latest, from the date of the patent. 

 If the " prescribed time " were thus extended, all opponents would wait until the 

 complete specifications were public, and then would have an opportunity of con- 

 ducting their opposition with the same elaboration and expense that would be 

 bestowed in impugning novelty by a defendant in a Patent action. The applicant 

 also would be put to similar cost, and thus the benefit conferred upon a poor 

 inventor by the reduction in the fees to be paid on obtaining a patent would be 

 much more than neutralised, and in lieu of the average of nine patent causes per 

 annum, which prevails under the present law, there would in effect be as many 

 causes as there were oppositions to the sealing of patents. And while considering 

 this subject, the very serious demand upon the time of the law officers which 

 would ensue upon oppositions thus conducted must not be lost sight of. On these 

 considerations, notwithstanding the apparent logic of the argument that at present 

 an opponent is opposing he knows not exactly what, while under the suggested 

 prescribed time he will be left in no doubt, the Committee are of opinion that, as 

 a matter of practical working, opposition on open documents is not expedient. 



The Committee have embodied their views on this subject in the following 

 resolution : — 



Kesolved unanimously, — " That this Committee, fearing that if oppositions 

 are conducted on open documents, the expenses of these oppositions, and 

 the time occupied, will be equal to that of an action upon a patent, deem it 

 desirable that the prescribed time should not extend beyond nine months 

 from the date of application, and that these oppositions should be conducted 

 as at present without open documents." 



Clause 13. — The Committee entirely approve of giving the applicant for a 

 patent the same power of appeal as is possessed by his opponent. 



Clause 15. — Clause 15 has not been referred to among the principal novel 

 features, because it is a repetition of the Clauses 18, 19, and 23 of the Act of 

 1852, but the Committee believe an alteration might be beneficially made. Under 

 the existing law, and under this Bill if it becomes law, an applicant for a patent 

 whose provisional protection bears a later date than the provisional protection of 

 another applicant may make earUer application for the seal, and if he does so it is 

 within the power of the Lord Chancellor (and the Committee know that that 

 power has been exercised) to date the patent of the first applicant later than that 

 of the second, and thus the first applicant is put to a great disadvantage. Under 

 these circumstances there is a temptation for applicants to obtain the seal as early 

 as possible, whereas it appears to the Committee that an inventor should be 

 encouraged, if he is in the least doubt, to use the whole of the time allowed 

 him before he need apply for the seal to ascertain whether his supposed invention 

 is new, and also whether it can be practically carried into operation, and that a 

 person thus prudently acting should be, as the Committee have said, encouraged, 

 whereas the operation of the clause would be to urge the inventor to obtain the 

 seal as early as possible, lest, by delaying to do so, he should lose his priority ae a 

 patentee. 



The Committee embodied their opinion on this point in the following reso- 

 lution: — 



Resolved unanimously, — " That the Committee are of opinion that it is un- 

 desirable there should be any doubt as to priority of patent protection, 

 arising from the rapidity with which certain formal acts may be carried out 

 by the applicant, and they, therefore, recommend that for all purposes, and 

 under all circumstances, the priority of patents should be reckoned as from 

 the day of the application for provisional protection." 



Clause 16. — With respect to the proposed doing away with the power of the 

 1879. d 



