§ Dr. CLAYTONI beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out the first word "or," and to insert instead thereof the word "and".
The effect of this Clause is that a patent may be revoked if the primary use is contrary to law. But the word "primary" does not seem to have any effective meaning apart from intent, and obviously if the primary use is illegal and is not intended there is no real ground for revoking a patent. If a legal use is intended obviously for the purpose of this Clause that is the primary use. It is not the intention of the Clause that a patent should be revoked for two separate reasons, first that the primary use is illegal, or secondly that the intended use is illegal. The phrase should therefore be "primary and intended use."
§ Mr. ESSENHIGHI beg to second the Amendment.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Clayton) has been so extraordinarily helpful through- 1435 out the Bill that I am very sorry not to be able to accept any Amendment moved by him, but I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. We are dealing here with the grounds for the revocation of patents, and the Clause is an attempt to declare the law in a consolidated form. We believe that this particular Sub-section declares the existing law. The effect of the Amendment would be to put on those who are seeking to prove grounds for revocation that the patentee had intended to break the law. I submit that patentees, like everyone else, must be assumed to know the law, and there ought not to be put on those who are seeking to revoke a patent the additional burden of proving not only that the patentee broke the law but that he intended to do so.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.