§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had postponed the second reading of the Shepard's Patent Bill and Wright's Patent Bill-both private measures—until Monday next, when he should draw their Lordships' attention to their terms. These Bills involved the serious question whether patentees who had allowed their patents to expire through not having paid the fee of £100 at the end of the first seven years, should be allowed to bring in Private Bills to remedy a neglect of which the patentees themselves had been guilty. If there should be any alteration of the law of patents it would be well to insert a clause in reference to this particular.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the House was very much indebted to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having brought the subject under their notice. At present the Lord Chancellor had a certain discretion of relaxing the law in cases where he might think it reasonable to do so. In the Bill which he hoped to be able to submit to the House for amending the law of patents this would be one of the matters included; and if the clause relating to it should be agreed to it would be in the power of the Commissioners of Patents in equitable cases to relax the rules of law.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, the difficulty was to know where the line should be drawn in relaxing the law—whether it should be confined to cases of the lapse of a few days, or extended to cover the lapse of three months. He thought that if the patentees did not pay the £100 at the proper time there should be a further time allowed to them—say one month; and that they should be required to pay the penalty of £200 or £300.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDBRLEYinquired in what manner the necessity of these Bills had arisen?
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was called "inadvertence." In one case the cause 636 alleged was sickness in the patentee's family, and he was disposed to think it was an honest case of inadvertence.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked whether, if the money was not paid at the proper time, the patent did not lapse? In that case the Bill was not to continue the patent, but to revive it. And, what he asked, was to be the position of those who, in the interval, knowing the patent had lapsed, had appropriated the invention?
LORD CRAN WORTHsuggested, that the Bill about to be introduced might contain a clause making the Bill retrospective, if the Lord Chancellor should think fit in the particular cases for which Private Bills were now before the House.
§ LORD REDESDALEthought that a fixed rule ought to be laid down to meet all cases of lapsed patents, and that nothing ought to be left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of Committees.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the question for their Lordships to consider was, whether they would permit these privilegia to be brought in in particular cases to relieve men from the forfeiture which they had incurred by reason of their not observing a well known law. If they permitted it, then, of course, their Lordships must be satisfied by the same proofs of the fact as would be required by a Court of Equity, and that, of course, would have to be obtained by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. The difficulty suggested by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Ellen-borough) was, no doubt, a very important one. The moment a patent ceased, the invention became public property, and if their Lordships interfered to set up a patent again, how were they to cover the interval between the lapse of the patent and the time when the Bill received the Royal Assent. No doubt great inconvenience would be produced, and he could hardly see how a court of justice could give a remedy in such a case.