I N D U S T R I A 1, A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
1304
per cent sulfuric acid method. Two-gram samples were treated with 500 cc. of 0.1 N potassium permanganate for 2 hours a t 25” C. The consumption of permanganate was found to be directly proportional to the lignin added: LIQNIN IN
SlVPLE
0.1 N KMnOd CONSUMED
cc.
As has been previously pointed out (S), the reaction of potassium permaiiganate with vanillin and sucrose is from 84 to 99 per cent complete, the end products being carbon dioxide and water From the sirnilarity of substances present in digester liquor, i t is believed that thr osygen consumption method is a very complete measurement of the organic components of sulfite liquor, including lignin itself. BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION OF LIGNIN The decomposition of lignin by microorganisms is a matter that requires fuller investigation. Althoupli analyses (5, 10) of decn\ ed wood show that the sample of decayed wood contained a hiptier percentage of lignin than the sound wood, the recent worh of Phillips, Weihe, and Smith (9), of Boruff and Buswell ( h ) , and of Campbell (6)on the action of soil microorganisms on lignified plant materials indicate very conclusively that the loss of lignin was as great as that of cellulose
Vol. 24, No. 11
and pentosans, and in some instances greater. Franz Fischer (7) has presented evidence of the biological oxidation of coal and even of hydrocarbons such as methane into carbon dioxide and water. The well-known oxygen demand of sulfite waste liquor and of lignin precipitated from waste liquor by the Howard process indicates its susceptibility t,o breakdown by organisms naturally occurring in sea water. The general purifying action of both the soil and the sea are very much alike, and would warrant the belief that lignin is subject to the same biological reactions as other organic constituents of land drainage and pollution. The assumption, therefore, that a t the end of a year it is still present in sea water in unchanged form or even as oxidation products does not seem reasonable. LITERATURE CITED (1) Benson, Puper Trade J.,90, 69 (1930). (2) Benson and Benson, IND.ESG. CHEM.,Anal. Ed., 4, 200 (1932). (3) Benaon and Hicks. Ibid., 3, 30 (1931). (4) Borufi and Buswell. IND. EXQ.C‘BEX., 22, 931 (1930). (5, Bray and Andrcwa, I h i d . , 16, 137-9 (1824). (6) Caniphell, Biochem.J.,24, 1235 (1930). (7) Fiachcr. Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. Bituminous Coal, 1931, 809-19. (8) Hopkins, Galstoff, and McMillin, Bur. Fisheries, Bull. 6, 15961 (1931). (9) Phillips, Weihe, and Smith, Soil Sci.. 30, 383-90 (1930). (10) Schaalbe and Ekenstam, CelZuloaechem., 8, 13-15 (1927). (11) Sivertz and Grant, Proc. Tech. Assoc. Pulp Puper Ind., Fob.. 1932. (12) Thompson and Bonnar, IND.ENG. CHEM.,Anal. Ed., 3, 393 (193 1). RECEIVED May 23, 1932. Prewnted before the Division of Water, Eewage. m d Sanitation Chemistry at the 83rd Meeting of the American Chemical Society, New Orleans, La., hlarch 28 t o April 1, 1932
Shopright and International Convention OSCARA. GEIER, 274 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y.
U
NITED STATES inventors and owners of United States patent applications frequently wish to protect their inventions in foreibm countries only after the examination in the Patent Office in Washington has shown that the invention is really novel and that there is a t least a good chance of obtaining United States Letters Patent. They are perhaps aware that the provisions of the International Convention, to which most of the important countries of the world belong, give them a period of twelve months in which to deride whether foreign protection is desirable and in what countries it should be sought. I t is probably known also that, according to the terms of this Convention, nothing which transpires during these first twelve months from the date of the filing of the first patent application can invalidate their patents in foreign countries in the event that the foreign applications are filed during such period. The general idea about the International Convention is that the inventor or owner is fully protected in his rights during this twelvemonth period, as far as a particular invention is concerned. However, this idea is incorrect, and many inventors and manufacturers have lost valuable rights by not examining the stipulation of this Convention with more care. Article 4 of the International Convention reads as follows: “(n) He Tho has properly tiled a patent, a petty patent, a design patent or a trade-mark aj)plicstion in one of the Cnnvention countrieq . . . will enjoy the right o f prior’itg for filing in other countries provided, honever, that the rights of the third parties will be maintained.
( b ) Consequently, a suhsequent fi!ing in one of the ot,her countries of the Union . . . will not Le invalidated by events taking place in the interval. . .”
It has been found that the wording of this article is somewhat obscure and indefinite, and, therefore, practically every country has a different conception of its interpretation. It seems to be definitely established, however. that the sole purpose of this article is to protect an applicant filing under the International Convention and to secure his rights to a patent which would otherwise be voided. It is expressly stipulated in the article that rights of third parties will not be affected by any actions that the applicant mag take. The question as to what these rights of third parties actually are is differently defined in practically every country subscribing to the Convention. An important question, to which there is no answer in the text of the Convention, refers to the rights of a tliird prrson who has reduced an invention to practice in a foreign country during the period of time between the date of filing the first application and the date of filing of an application under the Convention in that foreign country. In some countries this person has no rights whatsoever. Should he file a patent application, he is considered as the junior applicant and the application is refused. Should he begin to manufacture the invention and to sell it to others, the patentee, who filed under the Convention, is able to stop him from continuing to do so as soon as a patent is granted.
E n l o m m C O ~ X T R IAKD ~ X Suor~nic~rrs It should be inadc clear, liowever, that marry iirrportant ICuropean countries do not give this protection to an applicant who files his application under the International Convention. The third party, who has reduced the same invention to practice during the Conventioii interval, will not lie ahle to obtain a valid patent in any of these countries. crtheless, he may obtain certain rights and privileges which nnder certain circumstances may seriously aflect the rights of the patentee. Germany is probably tlie iirost iniportant country which fiilloms this practice. According to the decision of the Gernian Supreme Court of June 5, 1820, a third p~:rsiin,xtro lias reduced an invention to practice during the priority year but before the riglitful inventor has filed his application in Cerinany, has the right to continue using this invent,ion even d t e r the inventor has received a patent on it. ‘I’liis right of tlie third party is essentially a shopright. It, is connected with a shop, factory, or firm, where the invention’ was first used. The third party may, uriilor certain circumstanees, liave the right to manufacture the invention, use it for himself, or sell the nianufactured article to others. He can even inairufacture the patented articles in other factories, provided that they are connected with the original shop or factory. This shopright is undetachably connected with the shop and can be sold to others only together with that shop. Austria has followed the example of her sister country, and liiis adopted the same principle. A decision of the Austrian Patent Office of December 21, 1920, reads as follows: Article 4 of the revised Convention of March 20, 1883. does not exclude the rights of the prior user protected by paragraph !I of the Austrian Patent Lawv,if these rights m r e ratablished in the period hetween the date of the first p:itent application in a state lielonging to the Convention, and the date of the rtpplication in hutria. The rights of the prior user, accordinn to paragraph 9 of tho Austrian Patent Law, are substantially the same as in Germany, where these rights are protected by paragraph 6 of the law. Ohviously, both the Austrian and the German laws do not refer to the Convention, and it was the a b o v e mentioned decisions which extended these laws to cover cases arising under the Convention. llolland has also followed Germany’s example. The Board of Appeals of the Dutch Patent Office published a decision on February 16, 1925, which substantially repeats the statement made by the Austrian Patent Office. This decision contains the follorving: The Board of Appeals points out that durirng the conference in Wwhington B propossl to revise Artide 4 of the Convention by inserting a clnuse stating that tha r!ghtq of R rior user could not be established during the priority mtervay, was rejected. It follows that the argument that the Converrbion oxeludes such a right cannot be maintained.
,.llie rights of the prior user, which liave iieen established before the iiliiig of a patent application, arc also protected by the patent laws of Poland, Hungary, Finland, Ihnmark, Sweden, and Korway. In all these countries it is understood that tlie protection granted to the prior uscr extends also to tlrose cases wliert?in the rights were established during the Coir‘icrition interval. Leading attorneys of these conntries agree that Article 4 of the International Convention does not iiiriiinish this pr
