PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 30 May 1949)

HL Deb 30 May 1949 vol 162 cc1203-33 1203

§ 3.9 p.m.

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

1204

§ Clause 4 [Priority date of claims of complete specification]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 26, leave out the third ("the").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 6:

§ Additional powers of comptroller in relation to applications

§ (4) No amendment of a complete specification shall be made in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, and no such amendment shall be made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section after the acceptance of the specification—

(a) otherwise than by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation; or
(b) so as to make the specification as amended claim an invention larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the specification without the amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is down in my name as a result of collaboration between the experts of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and mine. This affects the most technical part of the Bill, and I am assured by those who advise me that it meets the points which the noble and learned Viscount made and my objection to them on the Committee stage. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) (except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) so that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said. When I moved the Amendment to this clause as it was in the Bill, I said that it was one of the most technical matters which arose, and after taking advice I proposed a change. I think that those who have considered the matter on behalf of the Government agree that a change was necessary. This is, in substance, the change which was suggested. 1205 I believe that the present words effect the purpose of us all, and I am glad to say that we agree to the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 14:

§ Revocation of patent by court

§ 14.—(1) The following section shall be substituted for section twenty-five of the principal Act:—

§ 25.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a patent may, on the petition of any person interested, he revoked by the court on any of the following grounds, that is to say—

§ (i) that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in the proposed new subsection (1) (i) to omit all words from "the" down to, and including, "claim," and to insert: scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly ascertained, or that any claim of the complete specification. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, unfortunately this is another technical matter. On page 10 of the printed Bill, at line 3, there is a phrase which runs: that the subject matter for which protection is claimed is not sufficiently defined in the claim or claims of the complete specification, or that any such claim is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification. I will not detain your Lordships by endeavouring to expound the particular difficulties of that phraseology, but the substance of what I suggested in Committee was that perhaps it is not the best form of language to speak of "the subject matter for which protection is claimed." The real question is the scope of the claim. I think those who advise my noble friend have considered this point also, and I move these substituted words in the belief that the Government will accept them. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("the") to ("is") in line 6, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, the facts are as the noble and learned Viscount has stated them, and 1206 therefore I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 16:

§ Compulsory licences

§ (2) The grounds upon which application may be made for an order under this section are as follows, that is to say:—

§ (d) that by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a liccnce or licences on reasonable terms—

(i) a market for the export of the patented article manufactured in the United Kingdom is not being supplied; or
(ii) the working or efficient working in the United Kingdom of any other patented invention which makes a substantial contribution to the art is prevented or hindered; or
(iii) the establishment or development of commercial or industrial activities in the United Kingdom is otherwise prevented or hindered;

§ (e) that by reason of conditions imposed by the patentee upon the grant of licences under the patent, or upon the purchase, hire or use of the patented article or process—

(i) the manufacture, use or sale of materials not protected by the patent is unfairly prejudiced; or
(ii) the establishment or development of commercial or industrial activities in the United Kingdom is otherwise prevented or hindered.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (d) (iii) to leave out "otherwise prevented or hindered" and insert "unfairly prejudiced." The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the House to deal at the same time with this Amendment and the Amendments to page 11, line 41 and page 11, line 44. On the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment to insert the word "unfairly" after the words "prevented or hindered" in line 32 of page 11. This Amendment was withdrawn, and although no undertaking was given to consider it, I have reconsidered the whole of paragraphs (d) and (e). The insertion of the word "unfairly" is unnecessary, because it is through the unreasonableness of the patentee that the invention is prevented or hindered—unfairly or otherwise matters not. I think, however, that a little cleaning up makes the whole of these two subsections more plain, and probably the 1207 noble and learned Viscount will agree with the Amendment I have put down.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 35, leave out ("otherwise prevented or hindered") and insert ("unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I agree that we can deal with these three Amendments together; they all involve a certain change of phraseology. The Bill as presented to the House had at this point the words "prevented or hindered" and it was pointed out from this side that there was no qualification to those words. Earlier legislation had, in fact, used the words "unfairly prejudiced." I think the noble Lord is well advised in saying, in effect, "Let us strike out 'otherwise prevented or hindered' and substitute 'unfairly prejudiced.'" That is what he has done. I am grateful to him and I agree with the course he has followed.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 41, leave out ("is unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 44, leave out ("otherwise prevented or hindered") and insert ("unfairly prejudiced").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 15, leave out ("under this section").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 19:

§ Indorsement of patent on application of Government department

§ (2) Where according to a report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission as laid before Parliament under section nine of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, conditions to which that Act applies prevail in respect of the supply of goods of any description which consist of or include patented 1208 articles, or in respect of exports of such goods, or in respect of the application to goods of any description of any process which consists of or includes a patented process, and either—

(a) according to the report, as laid before Parliament, those conditions or any things done by the parties concerned as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest; or
(b) not earlier than three months from the date on which the report was laid before the Commons House of Parliament, a resolution has been passed by that House declaring that those conditions or any things which, according to the report as laid before Parliament are done by the parties concerned, as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate as aforesaid;

a competent authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1948 may apply to the comptroller for an order under the next following subsection in respect of the patent.

§ (3) If upon an application under the last foregoing subsection it appears to the comptroller that the matters which, according to the report or resolution mentioned in that subsection, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest include—

(a) any conditions in a licence or licences granted by the patentee under the patent restricting the use of the invention by the licensee or the right of the patentee to grant other licences under the patent; or
(b) a refusal by the patentee to grant licences under the patent on reasonable terms,

he may by order cancel or modify any such condition as aforesaid or may, if he thinks fit, instead of making such an order or in addition to making such an order, order the patent to be indorsed with the words "licences of right".

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
had given notice of a number of Amendments to subsection (1), of which the first was, after the word "after," to insert "the expiration of three years from the date of."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide that an application for an order under this clause shall not be made until at least three years after a patent has been sealed. This falls into line with the Amendment which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and which we accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 3, after ("after") insert ("the expiration of three years from the date of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I quite agree.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1209

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, perhaps I may again have your permission to deal with several Amendments together—in this instance, lines 4, 7, and 8, of page 14. The first and third of these are consequential on the second, and the second is merely to give the Government the right to apply for a licence to be granted to a third party. I beg to move the first Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 4, leave out from ("comptroller") to end of line 5.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("for the indorsement of the patent with the words 'licences of right' or for the grant to any person specified in the application of a licence under the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, may ask the noble Lord a question? Does not the Bill as printed refer in this clause to "section fifteen"?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
That is a misprint.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
And the clause will be re-numbered?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Yes, that is right.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("established") to end of line 9, and insert ("make an order in accordance with the application").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.18 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved to delete paragraph (a) of subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the first and perhaps the only fundamental alteration proposed to this Bill, and I must explain rather more fully than has been necessary on any earlier Amendment what this Amendment seeks to do. Clause 19, in subsections (2) and (3), endeavours to establish 1210 what shall be the relations between a report of the Monopolies Commission and the exercise of jurisdiction by the comptroller for the purpose of ordering a modification in the terms of a licence granted by a patentee. As the Bill was drawn it appeared to me (and I think that my argument has now been largely accepted) that what was proposed was not really right. On the Second Reading I pointed that out with some vigour. Since that time there has been a good deal of discussion with the advisers of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who have throughout shown a most reasonable spirit. It is now agreed that as the Bill is printed these clauses are not right, and that they must be altered; and the alteration will be achieved by the Amendment which, together with the next two Amendments, I am moving.

§ May I just state the position briefly? Last year we carried an Act which authorised the setting-up of a Monopolies Commission. The Monopolies Commission is set up by the President of the Board of Trade with a reference which he prescribes, and the duty of that Commission is to make an inquiry to see whether or not in some particular branch of a trade or industry a monopoly is operating in such a way as to be injurious to the public interest. Very prudently, the Government introduced into the Monopolies Act of last year an exception by which they secure that no industry that has been nationalised by the State can be the subject of such an inquiry. They are immune from these irritating investigations, but other people may have to put up with them. When the Monopolies Commission have investigated a matter, which involves inquiries, questionnaires, statistics, visits to works and obtaining all sort of information, they produce a report. In some cases, the report will merely state the facts which they consider they have ascertained. In other cases, it will not only do that but will also say that, in the opinion of the Commission, what they have ascertained constitutes in some respect or another a situation which is contrary to the public interest.

§ In either event, so far as the Monopolies Act of last year is concerned, no consequence follows without some form of Parliamentary sanction. Either, as is set out in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) a report must have been laid 1211 before the Commons House of Parliament and a resolution … passed by that House declaring that those conditions or any things which, according to the report as laid before Parliament are done by the parties concerned, as a result of or for the purpose of preserving those conditions, operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest; or, if that statement is not included in the report of the Monopolies Commission, nothing can be done under the Act of last year until an Order has been made by the President of the Board of Trade which has to come before both Houses of Parliament and be supported by an affirmative Resolution. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that, so far as last year's legislation is concerned, useful as the investigations of the Monopolies Commission may be, no result can follow from those investigations unless there is in one form or another a Parliamentary sanction—in one case a Resolution of another place, in the other case an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. As this clause is drafted, it would be possible for the comptroller to exercise the jurisdiction here given without having to produce Parliamentary authority at all. It seemed to me and to others that that was wrong, because, after all, the Monopolies Commission are a body with very wide terms of reference. They conduct their own procedure as they think fit. They are not obliged to hear evidence on oath. They are not obliged to give notice to people who may be affected. Like many other similar bodies, they make inquiries as best they can; but it is not a judicial proceeding of any sort.

§ There is one other feature I should like to mention now. In the Monopolies Act of last year an exception was introduced, rather curiously, I think, because it was thought well to wait for this Patents and Designs Bill which is now before the House—that is to say, that an order, which might be made as I have described, could not include any direction which would modify the way in which a patentee had granted licences to this person or that. It was thought proper to keep that until the introduction of this Bill. Obviously, a patent stands rather apart from other practices in business, because, in the nature of things, a patent begins by being a monopoly, and the extent to which other people may use it is most 1212 properly controlled. Therefore, I have proposed that the scheme should be modified in this way. By this clause the comptroller is given a new power, and it is right that he should be given a new power. His power is to be found at page 14, line 32, of the Bill. When certain conditions have been fulfilled, then— a competent authority. that means that a number of Government Departments of State, including the Board of Trade— … may apply to the comptroller for an order under the next following subsection. Then, under the next following subsection, on an application to the comptroller, if it appears to him that the matters which are mentioned in the report may be expected to operate against the public interest. he may, after hearing the parties, modify the conditions of a licence granted by the patentee.

§ That seems to me to be perfectly right, provided that the whole foundation of the comptroller's jurisdiction is based on this condition precedent—namely, that there has been a Resolution of another place such as is described in paragraph (b). The other House, having considered the report of the Commission, may resolve that there is a question of public interest which is involved and that, as things are, there is a prejudice which ought to be removed. The comptroller will then have jurisdiction—it may be quite an incidental case; it may be considered, after evidence, to be not a desirable way in which to restrict the use of the patent—and may modify the conditions which the patentee has hitherto attached to the grant of the licence. That appears to me to be perfectly right, and that is the effect of the Amendments which I move.

§ The consequence will be that, in the first instance, there is to be a Resolution of another place such as I have described. Once that has been passed, neither House of Parliament would have anything more to do with the matter. The comptroller will thereupon acquire a new jurisdiction under this clause. I think that is perfectly right. Thenceforward it is not a Parliamentary process but a judicial process. The comptroller may well be trusted to administer his duty judicially and, if there is any difference of opinion as to whether or not he has decided rightly, then there 1213 is an appeal to what is called, I think, the Appeal Tribunal, presided over by a High Court Judge. What the comptroller may do is to say: "After hearing all this evidence, I think you ought to be ordered to modify the conditions attached to the licence of your patent." That is quite right.

§ There is one further point I should like to mention at once, although, as a matter of fact, it comes in on page 16, line 34. If your Lordships will turn to that page for a moment, you will see that, as the Bill was drawn, when the comptroller exercised this new jurisdiction he was to be entitled to use any statement which was made in the report of the Monopolies Commission as "conclusive evidence" of the matters there stated. That was defended on the Second Reading as being the only way in which to avoid an undesirable duplication of proceedings. Certainly, none of us wants to have anything done twice over, but it was pointed out from this side that it is not really a duplication of proceedings. The proceedings of the Monopolies Commission are in the nature of collecting material about which they ultimately make a report. The later proceedings do not involve collecting that material all over again; they merely result in presenting to the Tribunal, the comptroller, the evidence which they have found as the result of this inquiry. But sometimes there may be in the report of the Monopolies Commission a statement of fact that on such and such a day the patentee refused to grant this licence or that, and other concrete statements on facts of that kind, possibly quite incidental to the main inquiry. I think it is perfectly right to say that the comptroller may, in deciding the matter, have regard to those statements, not indeed as being conclusively correct, but as being prima facie correct, so that, if anybody says that that is not really what happened, he must come before the comptroller and prove the contrary.

§ I know that this has been a rather long explanation, but I can assure your Lordships that this is as nothing compared to the hours that have been consumed in considering it. This is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. We were greatly assisted by the Lord Chancellor himself, who managed to find time from all his other duties to act as a kind of benevolent arbitrator; and, as often 1214 happens, he greatly assisted in securing what I believe is complete agreement. I am perfectly content now that the Bill is altered in this way, and so, I believe, are others who communicated with me in the first place. I hope that Lord Lucas will be able to say that he is content too. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 23.—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for giving such a fair outline of the conclusions at which we have arrived. As he has rightly said, this matter has taken up hours of careful thought. Both of us were actuated with one desire—namely, to secure the best possible Bill we could. I would join him in thanking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his great help in this matter. I hope that Lord Simon will forgive me if I say that I still have my doubts as to whether this is right, but time will prove. The balance of argument is on the side of the noble and learned Viscount, so I accept his Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 31, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("against the public interest").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 37, leave out ("report or").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 22 [Procedure and evidence on application under ss. 16 to 21]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 5, after ("interest") insert ("(if any)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (6) to to leave out "conclusive" and insert "prima facie." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is 1215 the Amendment to which I referred by anticipation: it is to substitute "prima facie" for "conclusive." I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 34, leave out ("conclusive") and insert ("prima facie").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 27 [Use of patented inventions for services of the Crown]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) to omit "subject matter of any claim of the complete specification" and to insert "invention." The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me I would like to deal with this and the next two Amendments together. They are really of a drafting nature. When discussing this clause in Committee upon an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, raised the point whether or not in subsections (2) and (3) of this clause, the words "subject matter" would conform to the best use of English. The noble and learned Viscount has mentioned it once before this afternoon. I readily looked into this, as I have done all the suggestions of the noble and learned Viscount, whether they have been contained in an Amendment or have been put forward as suggestions, and whether they have been proved or not, and I think that the two subsections are better drafted as I now propose. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree that my effort in this matter conforms to his idea of correct English in these two subsections. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 6, leave out from the first ("the") to ("has") in line 7 and insert ("invention").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I quite agree. I do not wish to be a purist in this matter. Indeed, I doubt whether in the whole of the law on patents classical English, as it is ordinarily understood, is to be found. But there is a practice in these cases, and I think the noble Lord is right when he says as a result of his inquiry, that "subject matter" is not the phrase usually employed. I think the expression he has substituted conforms to the best English of patent experts.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1216

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 7, leave out ("that claim") and insert ("the relevant claim of the complete specification").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 14, leave out from the first ("the") to ("has") in line 15, and insert ("invention").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.35 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4), to insert: (5) Where any use of an invention is made by or with the authority of a Government department under this section, then, unless it appears to the department that it would be contrary to the public interest so to do, the department shall notify the patentee as soon as practicable after the use is begun, and furnish him with such information as to the extent of the use as he may from time to time require.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to cover the substance of one of two Amendments moved during the Committee stage by Lord Simon, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Munster. The first referred to the marking with a patent number of articles made for Crown use. The second was in connection with the notification to the patentee of the intention and the extent of Crown use. At the time that the noble and learned Viscount moved this Amendment I expressed my sympathy, but doubted whether it would be possible to give practical expression to it. I have looked into this point very carefully but I have completely failed to find anything that would be worth inserting in the Bill to cover the point of marking.

§ This is an exceedingly intricate subject. May I just illustrate one point in regard to the difficulties? At the present moment a Service sparking plug is manufactured by all the manufacturers making sparking plugs and is the subject of three or four patents, some of disputed validity. So even if it were possible to put all the numbers of the patent on the plug, would it be possible to ask a rival manufacturer to put the patent number of another manufacturer on the plug, the patent validity of which is disputed? I could go on and cite other similar examples. During the Committee stage I said that I would give an undertaking that the Service Departments would see that the 1217 patent number was put on every manufacture where it was reasonable and practical, and was not contrary to the public interest. To-day I will repeat that undertaking, and I sincerely trust that it will be acceptable to the noble and learned Viscount. I am sorry that I cannot go further on this particular point.

§ But when it comes to notification I think I have had a little more success, which is reflected in the Amendment put down in my name. I would like, however, to make it clear to noble Lords that what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, wanted in the first place was that the Government Department should notify intention to use. The noble and learned Viscount will see that we have not inserted a provision to that effect, because we thought that the important point was to notify the intention to use when such use started, and the extent of use after it had started. To notify the intention to use may be pointless, since we may intend to use it but may never do so. I hope that with those words I have explained how I have tried to meet the noble and learned Viscount. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has acted most reasonably in this matter, and I thank him. The Amendment before the House does not deal with marking at all. Appreciating the difficulties, we did not seek to press that at this stage, but none the less it is useful and acceptable to have a repetition of the assurance which has been given—namely, that a Government Department will cause the patent number to be put on the article where it is practicable to do so and where there is no reason to the contrary. Unless that is done when it can be done, there is a danger that the article will get into the hands of other manufacturers who will not know that it is the subject of a patent and will proceed to manufacture it. Nobody wants to see that happen. But at this stage it is impossible to do more than the noble Lord has indicated, and I accept with much gratitude what he has said about it.
The other matter in this Amendment is very important indeed. In some cases where a Government Department claim to use a patent they use it very often; but in other 1218 cases they may use it much more seldom. But as the law stands at the present time, if I understand it rightly, in no case is there any requirement on a Government Department to tell the patentee that his invention is being used; and there may be cases where the patentee does not know. Since his remuneration will be settled—if necessary by arbitration—in proportion to the amount of use, it must be right to give him information so that he may know what has been done with his patent. The object of this Amendment is that, unless the public interest dictates otherwise, the Government Department that use a patent shall notify the patentee of the use and shall, from time to time, inform him of the extent of it. That puts him in a position to know the sort of claim he ought to make. I think everyone will agree that that is reasonable, and I am sure that patentees will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have no axe to grind in this matter, of course, except to contribute any assistance in so far as lies in my power. I think that the noble Lord has put the matter most fairly, and I accept his Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 28 [Rights: of third parties in respect of use for services of the Crown]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19, line 15, after ("person") insert ("who derives title from him or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to an Amendment which I am going to move to page 31, line 18. That is the interpretation clause and we are inserting in the interpretation clause definitions of "exclusive licence" and "exclusive licensee." I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("then") in line 29, an I insert ("Where an exclusive licence granted otherwise than for royalties or other benefits determined by reference to the use of the invention is in force under the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1219

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment remedies an omission in the Bill by providing for the case where the patentee has acquired the right to apply for or obtain the patent before the patent is granted. At present, Clause 28 (3), applies only where the assignment to the patentee was made after the patent was granted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19, line 41, after ("patent") insert ("or the right to apply for or obtain the patent").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (4) and to insert in its place: (4) Where, under subsection (3) of section twenty-seven of this Act, payments are required to be made by a Government department to a patentee in respect of any use of an invention, any person being the holder of an exclusive licence under the patent (not being such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section) authorising him to make that use of the invention shall be entitled to recover from the patentee such part (if any) of those payments as may be agreed upon between that person and the patentee, or as may in default of agreement be determined by the court under the next following section to be just having regard to any expenditure incurred by that person—

(a) in developing the said invention; or
(b) in making payments to the patentee, other than royalties or other payments determined by reference to the use of the invention, in consideration of the licence;

and if, at any time before the amount of any such payment has been agreed upon between the Government department and the patentee, that person gives notice in writing of his interest to the department, any agreement as to the amount of that payment shall be of no effect unless it is made with his consent.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to an Amendment which is an attempt to meet the case put very eloquently by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, during the Committee stage. This covers what I believe Lord Swinton himself called his "third horse." That is the case of the exclusive licensee who had acquired an exclusive licence under some arrangement with the patentee which involved the exclusive licensee in investing a considerable sum of money for development purposes. It did not fall under any of the other clauses. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked why this man was not entitled to be joined with the patentee in a share of any monies the Crown paid out under 1220 their obligation to pay royalties, and also to be joined with the patentee in any negotiations with the Government. Though this looks rather a long subsection, we have tried to draft it in such a way—as the noble Viscount will see—as will cover his point. If such a licensee makes to the Department a notification in writing of his interest, he can be joined in these negotiations with the patentee. I do not think I need go further into this matter, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, so far as my third horse is concerned, I think it has run in an entirely satisfactory manner. I ran other horses for first and second places but they did not come in anything like so well. I am bound to say that the third horse was, probably, considerably the best horse in the stable. I have no doubt that the patentee will make pretty good terms when he comes to make a contract. Looking back on my own experience—and I have made a good many contracts of this kind—I feel satisfied that that will be so. I will drop horses one and two and be content with a win on number three. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 30:

§ Special provisions as to Crown user during emergency

§ (2) In this section the expression "period of emergency" means the period ending with the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty, and any other period approved by resolution of each House of Parliament for that purpose.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) to omit all words after "fifty" and to insert: or such later date as may be prescribed by Order in Council, and any other period beginning on such date as may be declared by Order in Council to be the commencement, and ending on such date as may be so declared to be the termination of a period of emergency for the purposes of this section. (2) A draft of any Order in Council under this section shall be laid before Parliament; and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an Address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the order be made.

1221

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the period of emergency. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will remember that when I accepted his Amendment in principle, I said it might be necessary for me to have second thoughts about the wording. These are the second thoughts, and I think the wording will be quite clear to the noble Viscount. The objects of this Amendment are, first, to cover conveniently the possibility that the existing Defence Regulations relating to the matters covered by Clause 30 may be extended for a further year beyond December 10, 1950, by an Order in Council, under Section 7 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Which would of course require an affirmative Resolution of Parliament.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
That is so. The second object of the Amendment is to make more convenient provision for securing that the clause shall apply only when there is a grave emergency. It is now proposed that the beginning and end of any new periods of emergency should be defined by Orders in Council, drafts of which must be laid before Parliament and will not be submitted to His Majesty except upon a request of both Houses. That, I think the noble Viscount will find, meets the aim of his Amendment completely. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("fifty") to end of line 7, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I think this Amendment is quite right. It must be apparent that as the Bill was drafted it was quite wrong in this regard. I pointed out during the Second Reading debate that, as the Bill was drafted, an emergency might go on for ever. A reasonable limit has now been put to it, and I quite agree to the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 31:

§ Provisions for ensuring secrecy in respect of inventions relevant for defence purposes

§ (3) Where a complete specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent for an invention in respect of which directions have been given under this section or under section twelve of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, 1222 is accepted during the continuance in force of the directions, the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to any use of the invention made during the continuance in force of the directions by or on behalf of or to the order of a Government department as if the patent had been granted for the invention.

§ (5) No person resident in the United Kingdom shall, except under the authority of a written permit granted by or on behalf of the comptroller, make or cause to be made any application outside the United Kingdom for the grant of a patent for an invention unless—

(a) an application for a patent for the same invention has been made in the United Kingdom not less than six weeks before the application outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) either no directions have been given under subsection (1) of this section or under section twelve of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, in relation to the application in the United Kingdom, or all such directions have been revoked.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this and the following Amendments are designed to meet the very eloquent plea of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. They are really drafting Amendments and they are intended to meet the case where secrecy has been terminated under paragraph (c) before the expiration of nine months from the date of the application for the patent. Obviously, in such a case, reconsideration of the secrecy order is unnecessary. The Amendment merely makes it clear that reconsideration is necessary only so long as the prohibition is in force. If the prohibition has been lifted it is not necessary for the application to be made. I think that is perfectly clear, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 26, leave out from ("notice") to ("consider") in line 29.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the previous one; the two go together. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 31, at end insert ("and unless a notice under paragraph (c) of this subsection has previously been given by that authority to the comptroller, shall reconsider that question before the expiration of nine months from the date of filing of the application for the patent and at least once in every subsequent year").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1223

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to any use of the invention" and to insert: then— (a) if any use of the invention is. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now come to the Amendment which seeks to satisfy the point made on Committee stage by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I think it would be as well if I read its substance. It is proposed by a subsequent Amendment to insert: (b) if it appears to a competent authority that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, that authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to him such payment by way of compensation (if any) as appears to them to be reasonable having regard to the novelty and utility of the invention and the purpose for which it is designed, and to any other relevant circumstances. Under the clause as it stands, an invention on the secret list is paid for by the Crown only if it is used. The noble Viscount wanted some compensation to be paid for the sterilisation of an invention. We could not admit the bringing of such a claim against the Crown, as I think the noble Viscount will agree; but we have gone so far as to make it a statutory obligation for a competent authority to consider making an ex gratia payment if all these considerations are met. I am sure I shall carry with me not only the noble Viscount but the whole of your Lordships' House when I say that the Government could not entertain the suggestion that any case of hardship can arise in prohibiting a British subject from selling to a foreign Power an invention which has been placed upon the Secret List in the interests of the safety of the Realm. I think that is in agreement with the noble Viscount's view on this subject, and I need say no more. We have done our best to meet the noble Viscount, and I think we have met him very well.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 23, line 8, leave out from ("directions") to ("made") in line 10 and insert— then— (a) if any use of the invention is").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

1224

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I think this is probably the best and most reasonable solution that can be obtained. It is very important that the power to make an ex gratia payment for a sterilised invention should be there, and I say that, not primarily in the interests of the inventor, but in the interests of security and of defence. Obviously, the Government must have power to put any class of invention on the secret list. That has always been important, and to-day it is more important than ever. It is also very important that that should be universally accepted and readily acted upon by every inventor. But it may well be that, although an invention is one of great moment and great value, the Government do not wish to use it either at the present time or possibly ever. We can all imagine that certain things may very well be invented, but there are enough horrors in the world to-day, and obviously we do not want to add to them.
At the same time, those inventions must be within the knowledge and under the control of the Government. If a man has his invention sterilised by the State, it is just as important that the State should be in a position, if it is right to do so, to make a payment for it as for an invention which they use. I am sure that is the right way of dealing with it, and not by the review of the secret list by a tribunal. That was a suggestion the noble Lord was good enough to throw out at one time, when we were pooling our ideas on this matter. I am sure that that would not do, because the Government, and the Government alone, can and must be the judges of whether inventions should be on the secret list. I do not think it would be at all suitable to send them before a tribunal. This is the right method and I am sure that the Government, having this power, while not throwing biscuits about wherever there is a worthless dog, will not hesitate to make a just and fair payment in a right and proper case. I accept this Amendment fully as the best solution.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said. He realises that this is a new departure and we are glad to have his observations.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1225

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 23, line 12, after ("department") insert ("the provisions of sections twenty-seven to thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to that use").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 23, line 12, at end insert— and (b) if it appears to a competent authority that the applicant for the patent has suffered hardship by reason of the continuance in force of the directions, that authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to him such payment by way of compensation (if any) as appears to them to be reasonable halving regard to the novelty and utility of the invention and the purpose for which it is designed, and to any other relevant circumstinces."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to subsection (5): Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to an invention for which an application for protection has first been filed in a country outside the United Kingdom by a person resident outside the United Kingdom. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out a suggestion made on Committee stage, and I think it is manifestly right to introduce this proviso. I am in hopes that the noble Lord will agree with me.

§ Amendment moved— Page 23, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount will realise, when a similar Amendment was moved on Committee stage, we did not like it, on grounds of security. The object of the Amendment is to protect patent agents in this country who receive instructions from applicants in other countries to file applications in a third country. This work by patent agents is a source of some revenue to this country, and although we did not at first think the Amendment warranted our acceptance, for security reasons, we have now come to the conclusion that it is for the country 1226 in which the first application is filed to suppress information that is of real importance. Therefore we accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 35 [Proceedings by licensee for infringement]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment in Clause 49 inserting a general definition of the term "exclusive licence," to which I have already referred. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 7, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 36 [Threats of legal proceedings and additional power to make declaration as to non-infringement]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, on Committee stage we agreed in principle with the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, but said that on extended consideration we might have some drafting Amendments. The effect of this group of Amendments is to make it clear that a manufacturer who asks either a patentee or an exclusive licensee for the necessary permission to use a patent, can bring an action for a declaratory judgment only against those who refuse. I think that both the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will appreciate the point. This and the following Amendments are consequent upon the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount which we accepted.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 18, after ("a") insert ("claim of a").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment: agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 20, leave out from ("or") to the first ("the") in line 21.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("patent") to ("notwithstanding") in line 22.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1227

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 23, leave out ("any exclusive").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 26, leave out ("and to any exclusive") and insert ("or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 28, leave out ("or them").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 30, leave out ("any exclusive").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this was the point, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, will remember, where we agreed in principle but withdrew Amendments on Committee so that we could have second thoughts. This Amendment makes it clear that the making of a declaration will not imply that the patent is valid, and thus renders it unnecessary for a statement to that effect to be included in the declaration.
I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that that is the short point. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 25, line 34, at end insert— ("(4) The validity of a claim of the specification of a patent shall not be called in question in proceedings for a declaration brought by virtue of this section and accordingly the making or refusal of such a declaration in the case of a patent shall not be deemed to imply that the patent is valid.").—Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 37 [Reference to comptroller of disputes as to infringement]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 25, line 41, leave out from ("licensee") to ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 4.4 p.m.

§ Clause 43 [Effects of copyright and legal proceedings]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. 1228 With the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may also deal with the Amendment to page 29, line 10. This is a revised wording of an Amendment which I moved upon the Committee stage, which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, queried. We have now discussed this very thoroughly, and have come to the conclusion that the Amendment I now have down upon the Marshalled List is correct. I need not say very much about it, except to point out that the only alteration is the substitution of the words, "to make anything" for "to do anything." As this clause deals with the making of anything which infringes a design, the words "to make anything" are to be preferred. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 7, leave out from ("which") to ("being") in line 8, and insert ("the design is registered").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 10, at end insert ("and to make anything for enabling any such article to be made as aforesaid, whether in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man or elsewhere").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 49 [Interpretation and construction]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause: 'exclusive licence' means a licence from a patentee which confers on the licensee, or on the licensee and persons authorised by him, to the exclusion of all other persons (including the patentee), any right in respect of the patented invention, and "exclusive licensee" shall be construed accordingly;

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now arrive at the definition of the term "exclusive licence" about which I have been talking for quite a long time. I think it is clear that this Amendment defines the term "exclusive licence" where that term appears in the clauses of the Bill relating to patents and that, by implication, it also includes the term "exclusive licensee." We thought it better to have this definition in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 31, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1229

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, under Clause 41 (1) a design may be registered in respect of an article or a set of articles. The new subsection is proposed to avoid reference to a set of articles in each case where the expression "article in respect of which a design is registered" is used. It is purely interpretation. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 31, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) Any reference in this Act to an article in respect of which a design is registered shall, in the case of a design registered in respect of a set of articles, he construed as a reference to any article of that set").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ First Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments of principal Act]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is the first of three Amendments which are all consequential upon the Amendment I moved to page 5, line 5. In all cases we are dealing with the conditions under which an accepted complete specification can be amended, and it is necessary to set out those conditions consistently throughout. I may mention that in the consolidation Bill which will follow this Bill, the matter may be dealt with in a single clause; but as the Bill is at present drafted we must be consistent right the way through the Bill. That is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 37, line 6, leave out from ("or") to end of line 9 and insert ("(except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) so that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 44, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert— ("For subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— (6) No amendment shall be allowed, except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake, the effect of which would be that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification 1230 as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment."").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 44, line 41, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert— ("In the proviso for the words from the beginning to before the amendment' there shall be substituted the words Provided that (except for the purpose of correcting an obvious mistake) no amendment shall be so allowed the effect of which would be that the specification as amended would claim or describe subject matter not in substance disclosed in the specification before the amendment or that any claim of the specification as amended would not fall wholly within the scope of a claim of the specification before the amendment.'")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is in substance the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, on Committee. It seeks also to cover the point which was raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, the case of prior uses. The only important alteration which we have made to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is a stipulation that the prior working must have taken place within one year before the priority date of the claim relating to the worked invention. The result of the Amendment would be to give protection to the inventor who must, by the nature of his invention, make some experiments in public. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, will agree that we have effected some slight improvement. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 49, line 26, at beginning insert— ("(3) An invention claimed in any claim of a complete specification shall not be deemed to have been anticipated by reason only that, at any time within year before the priority date of the claim, the invention was publicly worked in the United Kingdom—

(a) by the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title; or
(b) by any other person with the consent of the patentee or applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title,

if the working was effected for the purpose of reasonable trial only and if it was reasonably necessary, having regard to the nature 1231 of the invention, that the working for that purpose should be effected in public").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
had given Notice to move three Amendments to the amendment to Section 93 of the principal Act, the third of which was to leave out the definition of "invention" and insert: In the definition of 'invention,' after the word 'Monopolies' there shall be inserted the words 'and any new method of process of testing applicable to the improvement or control of manufacture.' The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to take the Amendments to page 61, lines 11, 12 and 14 together, because the first two are consequential upon the third. These are the last Amendments to this Bill, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my saying that, even though I have to move them, I do not like them. This affects the contentious point of the definition of "invention." We have studied very carefully and closely what the noble and learned Viscount said on the Committee stage, but we much prefer what is in the Bill. This Bill will never have separate life; it will go to consolidation, and we may be consolidating the law of patents for a number of years. Therefore we thought it was perhaps time to shed the old and make an attempt at the new. However, the noble and learned Viscount did not agree with us, and the Swan Committee did not agree with us. We have tried to carry out the suggestions made by the noble and learned Viscount to find the best of both worlds—namely, to have the old definition (if definition one can call it; I have heard it called something very different !) and to tack on to it something of a new character. As I have said, we do not like it, but again the balance of argument was in favour of the noble and learned Viscount and so we accept his Amendment. We have tried to put it down as best we can, and I hope it will be acceptable to the noble and learned Viscount. I also hope that posterity will not call curses upon our heads for so doing. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 61, line 11, after ("design") insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, these are the last Amendments, and that at least ought to 1232 be a subject of satisfaction. As the noble Lord has put this particular charge upon me, may I say that I am completely indifferent as to the manner in which this word is defined. I had only one objection of substance to take at an earlier stage of the Bill. If I may say so, I greatly admire the extraordinary command of this subject which the noble Lord opposite has acquired—it is most extraordinary. But we all sometimes make mistakes, and I think he will admit that it was a mistake when he said that what was originally in the Bill was "100 per cent. Swan." It is not. For good or evil, the Swan Committee recommended something quite different. It was excusable that that mistake should be made, and I was concerned only that we should not accept the original proposal under the impression that we were thereby carrying out what Mr. Kenneth Swan and his comrades, after great labour, had recommended. They in fact recommended that we should make the change which will now appear in the Bill. With the noble Lord, I hope that posterity may regard us as having been wise. If, by any chance, posterity should ever consider my part in the business, I wish to say that the fault is entirely that of Lord Lucas!

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
My Lords, as everybody objects to the Amendment which is now before the House, I wish to say that although I do not like it very much, it is better than anything else I have yet seen defining what an invention is. Therefore, as there is nothing better to put forward, I welcome it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, adopts the tactics of saying that he does not like Amendments which he is moving, he will get into the same trouble as I have myself! I must say that I would like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord for the amazing grasp he has shown of this subject. After practising the law for nearly forty years, if I should want lessons in the law of patents I will ask Lord Lucas.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, as bouquets are being thrown, may I add mine? I came into the discussions on this Bill most unwillingly. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, taught me a great deal about it, and the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Simon have taught 1233 me more. I confined myself to questions of principle and policy, which are very easy to argue. I was four times President of the Department which has to deal with patents, and I certainly never knew so much about the subject as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does now. I think we may all be satisfied that all our "geese" have become "swans."

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 61, line 12, leave out from ("scale") to ("shall").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 61, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 20, and insert ("In the definition of 'invention,' after the word 'Monopolies' there shall be inserted the words 'and any new method of process of testing applicable to the improvement or control of manufacture'").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.