American Chemical Society, Boston Mass.
Introduction by G . A. Illunafo Texaco Development Corp., New York,N. Y .
2488
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
caused the U. S. Patent Officeto establish a separate class, Class 260, for organic chemicals, which is now the largest of all classifications and is still rapidly growing. The special problems in the handling of chemical inventions and the importance of having scientists and management understand their fundamentals has evoked a number of publications such as Deller’s “Patent Law for Chemical and Metallurgical Industries” (a), Hoar’s “Patent Tactics and Law” ( d ) , and Thomas’s “Chemical Inventions and Chemical Patents” (8). The nurturing and development of the patent embryo is a subject touched on lightly or not a t all in most of the publications on chemical patents, usually only to the extent of discussing the elements of a good disclosure and the importance of dating notes. Consequently, the writer, in discussing this subject with patent department representatives of oil and chemical companies, found them eager to know of the patent procedures employed by others, even though they may have a smooth working system of their own in operation. With the increase in the number and complexity of patent suggestions and the opening of new fields of activity, the need became most apparent for well organized systems to secure, evaluate, classify, and follow up these suggestions rather than to rely on a few good attorneys with excellent memories, just as the growth of the scientific literature engendered better indexing and abstracting procedures. With these facts in mind, the ACS Division of Chemical Literature organized this symposium on The Evolution of a Patent, jointly with the ACS Committee on Patents to cover two phases of the patent protection question: first, the methods employed by a variety of industrial concerns with different chemical interests to stimulate, evaluate, and develop patent suggestions; and secondly, the suggestions from various industries for improving Patent Office practices, particularly in respect to the granting of chemical patents. The variety of procedures which are currently and effectively employed in industry are illustrated in the first part of the symposium which is presented here. Modifications or even widely varying procedures may be used by several companies in the same chemical line or even by different branches within one company. As in Monsanto Chemical Cos’s organization, a system may be established under the research management with the legal department acting only in an advisory capacity until after the suggestions have been thoroughly reviewed, evaluated, and supplemented by data. The extent of responsibility for evaluation and the high level of the functions of the research group in this well organized system is somewhat unusual. The teamwork necessary between attorney and research worker is stressed a t the Socony-Vacuum’s laboratory but this liaison is most effective in smaller companies or divisions where relatively few inventions must be considered. A current trend, especially in large companies, such as Merck & Co., is toward the maintenance a t the laboratories of a staff of liaison men, who have technical training and some knowledge of patent law fundamentals. These men assist inventors, handle much of the preliminary work for the patent attorneys, and make literature and patent novelty searches. In a paper on “Patent Coordination a t Humble’s Baytown Refinery” (6),Litton explained the operations of a similar group, called a staff of Patent Coordinators. It has become increasingly self-evident that a good research worker as well as the patent attorney and liaison man must become familiar with the prior art (6). To search the patent art with the most economical outlay of time (a requisite in any modern system) requires frequent use of the U. S. Patent Office Classification Manual and the individual classification bulletins of the U. S. Patent Office. The major concepts determining the classification of a patent and its cross references are discussed and a prpcedure to be followed in making a patent search is described by a classification examiner. The second half of this symposium, which has been published in Chemical and Engineerzng News [29, Nos. 43 and 44 (1951)],
Vol. 43, No. 11
reveals the keen interest in proposed changes in patent practices and includes a n interesting resume of replies by large and small industrial concerns to the questionnaire sent by the chairman of the ACS Committee on Patents and Related Legislation.
TRANSFORMING IDEAS INTO PATENT PROPERTY Herbert J. Krase Monsanto Chemical Co., Dayton, Ohio
A patent granted by the Government allows its owner to exclude others from the practice of the claimed invention, This right is possessed by the owner for a period of 17 years from the date of the grant; a t the expiration of this period the invention may, in theory a t least, be practiced by anyone. Since the patentee takes his patent subject to all patents with prior filing dates, however, it may happen that dominating patents are still in existence a t the time the patent in question expires. The owner may waive his right t o exclude others by means of a license, for which a royalty may be demanded. He may also sell or exchange his patent. Accordingly, the patent has all of the attributes of any other kind of property, except that it terminates a t the expiration of the stated period. An idea or a secret process based thereon has no standing once the idea has become public knowledge. However, if the owner of such a process desires to maintain it in secrecy, he may have the aid of a court in enjoining a threatened breach of secrecy, He may also have damages as a result of a breach of confidence on the part of persons who are in a confidential relationship to him. This is not based on any theory of property of the subject matter of the idea but rather on the breach of confidence. Thus, any legal rights, which the owner of the secret may have, are founded not on the fiction that there is a property right involved but on equitable principles stemming from the relationship of the parties. STIMULATION OF IDEAS OR SUGGESTIONS
I n modern research groups staffed with young and ambitious scientists, it is not generally necessary to offer specific rewards for suggestions made. As a matter of fact, it is believed that specific monetary rewards offered for patents applied for or granted to staff members are a definite hindrance to the team work necessary in such organizations. Although outstanding contributions should certainly be recognized, since they are the seeds for future growth of the business, the recognition should come from management by way of salary adjustment and not by way of the patent department. The stimulation offered by the nature of work, association with like-minded people, and loyalty t o the organization should be, and generally are, sufficient incentive. Graduate chemists coming to industry for their first jobs are woefully unprepared and generally lack any conception of what industry expects in the way of “patent consciousness.” It seems that in this respect universities could well afford to offer undergraduates a series of lectures on the basic principles of patent law and practice. These would be helpful not only t o industry, which always has been patent conscious, but also to the many university-sponsored research foundations engaged in research of a practical, as contrasted to a purely scientific, nature. If a research organization includes a patent department the problem of developing patent consciousness in the research man may be solved by on-the-job training courses. Even the more or less haphazard contact between the patent staff and the chemists will, in the course of time, develop an appreciation of the importance of patents to the company and what is expected in the way of record keeping. It is, however, desirable to keep patent consciousness on the part of all concerned within reasonable bounds and in line with
