596  Product  Patents.  {^Sb^ffif- 
'    PRODUCT  PATENTS  FROM  A  PHARMACEUTICAL 
STANDPOINT. 
By  WmiAM  L.  Cliffk,  Ph.G. 
"  The  Congress  shall  have  power  ...  to  promote  the  pro- 
gress of  science  and  the  useful  arts  by  securing  for  limited  times  to 
authors  and  inventors  the  exclusive  right  to  their  respective  writ- 
ings and  discoveries."— Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Art.  I, 
Sec.  8. 
Acting  under  this  constitutional  mandate,  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  enacted  a  statute  in  1790,  providing  for  the  granting 
of  patents  upon  things  described  as  an  "  art,  manufacture,  engine, 
machine  or  device,  or  any  improvement  thereon." 
From  this  as  a  nucleus  was  evolved  a  model  of  legislative  brevity 
which  is  the  fundamental  law  covering  the  granting  of  patents  at 
the  present  time,  and  which  was  in  force  during  the  time  most  of 
the  chemical  product  patents  which  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper 
to  discuss  were  obtained.    (Section  4,886,  Revised  Statutes,  U.  S.) 
This  statute,  in  force,  provides  for  the  granting  of  patents  upon 
four  classes  of  inventions,  named  therein  as  an  Art,  Machine,  Manu- 
facture and  composition  of  matter.  These  are  really  increased  to 
eight  classes,  as  pointed  out  by  Hon.  Benjamin  Butterworth,  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  (1884,  30  Official  Gazette,  1,321),  by  the  addi- 
tional "for  any  new  or  useful  improvement  thereon." 
•  From  a  chemical  and  pharmaceutical  standpoint,  under  this  law, 
there  can  be  two  classes  of  patents  granted ;  one  for  an  art,  which 
is  commonly  described  as  a  process  patent;  and  another  kind  for  a 
composition  of  matter,  generally  referred  to  as  a  product  patent. 
To  the  chemist  seeking  as  a  patentee  a  monopoly  upon  the  results 
of  his  inventive  skill,  it  is  clearly  a  matter  of  self-interest  to  secure 
a  product  patent  whenever  he  can  do  so  by  claiming  invention  of 
the  product  of  a  chemical  process. 
The  reason  for  this  is  obvious :  granting  a  patent  upon  the  end 
product  of  a  chemical  process  effectively  bars  all  possibility  of  com- 
petition with  other  inventors  working  in  the  same  field. 
It  seems  clear  to  the  mind  of  a  layman  that  this  restriction  of 
improvement  is  clearly  in  opposition  to  a  fundamental  provision 
of  patent  legislation  as  expressed  in  the  statute,  to  wit,  "  for  any 
new  and  useful  improvement  thereon." 
