Examiners charged with the duties of generally supervising applications, with a view to ensure adequate descriptions, and due conformity between provisional and complete specifications, and of comparing applications relating to similar inventions which may be concurrently pending before the office, in order to avoid the granting of a patent for an invention contained in a previous unpublished application.

The effects of the principal changes made in the law are :—that the life of an English patent for a foreign invention will no longer be dependent on the duration of a previous foreign patent, as was formerly the case; that a patent will have the like effect as against the Crown as it has against a subject; that a patentee may be compelled to grant licenses under certain circumstances; and that a patentee may be held liable in damages for unjustifiably threatening legal proceedings.

The reduction of fees is undoubtedly a move in the right direction, but it is an open question whether in the true interests of inventors themselves this reform has not been carried too far in respect of the fees on the application for, and granting of, the patent. This, however, is a point which experience of the working of the law alone can determine. The option of substituting annual taxes for the burdensome duties of £50 and £100 hitherto payable, is a concession as welcome as it was unexpected, and will prove a most substantial boon to inventors. This is a reform which we have long advocated, but scarcely hoped to see realized.

We cannot but regret that the term of the patent was not fixed at 17 years without possibility of extension (as in the United States of America), instead of the old term of 14 years being retained, with power vested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of recommending an extension of the term in exceptional cases. This system has always appeared to us to work inequitably, both on account of the costly nature of the proceedings, and the extreme uncertainty of the results, and we have reason to think that had the duration been definitely

limited to a longer period, without extension, the interests both of inventors and the public would have been better served, and an element of uncertainty would have been eliminated.

We think that the extension of the term of provisional protection from six to nine months is a mistake. Except in very rare cases the shorter term has been found ample to enable inventors to reduce their inventions to practice, and it is to be feared that the greater length of the term, coupled with the absence of any incentives to action in the shape of payments falling due, will induce such leisurely action on the part of inventors that but little more will be accomplished in the way of perfecting inventions before finally specifying than has hitherto been done in the shorter term available.

The postponement of the opposition stage until after the publication of the specification is to be regretted, inasmuch as oppositions on open documents" must necessarily be much more expensive and will undoubtedly be much more frequent than under the system which has prevailed hitherto of opposing in the dark. The change in the practice does not seem to afford any advantages to inventors commensurate with the vastly increased expense it will entail on them and the difficulties which will be thereby thrown in their way, and although the new practice might to the uninitiated appear to be the most rational way of settling conflicting claims, those most conversant with patent matters are generally, if indeed they are not unanimously, of opinion that the balance of advantage is on the side of the old system.

In one respect the Act sets an example which might with advantage be followed in the legislation of almost every foreign country, namely, the omission of the highly objectionable clause of the old law, which made the duration of an English patent for a foreign invention previously patented abroad, dependent on the continuance of the previous foreign patent. This vexatious condition never did, and never could, effect any good object, and was at best merely a trap for the purchasers of English

Examiners charged with the duties of generally supervising applications, with a view to ensure adequate descriptions, and due conformity between provisional and complete specifications, and of comparing applications relating to similar inventions which may be concurrently pending before the office, in order to avoid the granting of a patent for an invention contained in a previous unpublished application.

The effects of the principal changes made in the law are :—that the life of an English patent for a foreign invention will no longer be dependent on the duration of a previous foreign patent, as was formerly the case; that a patent will have the like effect as against the Crown as it has against a subject; that a patentee may be compelled to grant licenses under certain circumstances; and that a patentee may be held liable in damages for unjustifiably threatening legal proceedings.

The reduction of fees is undoubtedly a move in the right direction, but it is an open question whether in the true interests of inventors themselves this reform has not been carried too far in respect of the fees on the application for, and granting of, the patent. This, however, is a point which experience of the working of the law alone can determine. The option of substituting annual taxes for the burdensome duties of £50 and £100 hitherto payable, is a concession as welcome as it was unexpected, and will prove a most substantial boon to inventors. This is a reform which we have long advocated, but scarcely hoped to see realized.

We cannot but regret that the term of the patent was not fixed at 17 years without possibility of extension (as in the United States of America), instead of the old term of 14 years being retained, with power vested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of recommending an extension of the term in exceptional cases. This system has always appeared to us to work inequitably, both on account of the costly nature of the proceedings, and the extreme uncertainty of the results, and we have reason to think that had the duration been definitely

limited to a longer period, without extension, the interests both of inventors and the public would have been better served, and an element of uncertainty would have been eliminated.

We think that the extension of the term of provisional protection from six to nine months is a mistake. Except in very rare cases the shorter term has been found ample to enable inventors to reduce their inventions to practice, and it is to be feared that the greater length of the term, coupled with the absence of any incentives to action in the shape of payments falling due, will induce such leisurely action on the part of inventors that but little more will be accomplished in the way of perfecting inventions before finally specifying than has hitherto been done in the shorter term available.

The postponement of the opposition stage until after the publication of the specification is to be regretted, inasmuch as oppositions on "open documents" must necessarily be much more expensive and will undoubtedly be much more frequent than under the system which has prevailed hitherto of opposing in the dark. The change in the practice does not seem to afford any advantages to inventors commensurate with the vastly increased expense it will entail on them and the difficulties which will be thereby thrown in their way, and although the new practice might to the uninitiated appear to be the most rational way of settling conflicting claims, those most conversant with patent matters are generally, if indeed they are not unanimously, of opinion that the balance of advantage is on the side of the old system.

In one respect the Act sets an example which might with advantage be followed in the legislation of almost every foreign country, namely, the omission of the highly objectionable clause of the old law, which made the duration of an English patent for a foreign invention previously patented abroad, dependent on the continuance of the previous foreign patent. This vexatious condition never did, and never could, effect any good object, and was at best merely a trap for the purchasers of English

patents unaware of the existence of prior foreign patents, or unable to exercise any control over the duration of the rights of other persons, upon which, however, their own so intimately depended. That foreign governments (especially that of the United States) will follow so excellent an example by amending their laws in the same sense is a consummation most devoutly to be wished.

Inventors are to be congratulated on the omission from the Act of all power on the part of the Examiners or of the Comptroller, to determine what is, or is not, proper subject matter for the grant of Letters Patent, and to grant or refuse patents accordingly, except in very rare instances, where the use of the invention may be considered contrary to law or morality.

course.

Patents will be granted at the applicant's risk, both as regards the subject matter and the novelty of the invention (so far as public knowledge extends), and this is undoubtedly the right The functions of the Examiners will be principally limited to a documentary examination with a view to secure, as far as is possible by any mere routine official examination, a proper compliance with the requirements of the law. It is, however, necessary in this connection to warn inventors that skilled assistance will be more than ever necessary in the preparation of the Specifications, not only to avoid delay and difficulty by prompt and efficient compliance with mere technical requirements, but if need be to defend their interests against adverse decisions arising from strained or unjust interpretations of the law, or from official misapprehension of the legitimate development of which inventions may be susceptible in their progress from first conception to practical realization. The alterations in the law do not affect the basis on which the validity of patents rests, and the notion, to which the system of documentary examination may lend color, that when a patent has passed the ordeal of an official examination its validity will be unquestionable, is entirely fallacious, as many confiding patentees will doubtless discover to their cost