PATENTS (FEES AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1961

HL Deb 24 July 1961 vol 233 cc833-6

3.38 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE) rose to move, That the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, 1961, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when the Patents and Designs Bill was before us earlier in the Session I told your Lordships that it was the intention of the Patent Office, when the Bill was passed, to raise the application fee from £1 to £2 and the filing of complete specification fee from £4 to £8. We are now proposing not to raise the application fee at all, to leave it as it is at £1, and to raise the specification fee from £4 to £10. There are two reasons for that change of intention. One is the desirability, which was considerably stressed in our debates, not to do anything at all which might deter the small inventor from applying for a patent. He has to pay the application fee, whereas a specification fee is normally paid by the business which takes up or exploits the invention. If the inventor happens to have the resources to do that himself, then the fee is a comparatively small item in his expenditure. The other reason is that a far greater part of the Patent Office expenditure is concerned with the examination of filing of complete specifications. It is estimated that they cost about £41 each, so the new fee of £10 will be only a quarter of that. The remainder of the cost is borne by the renewal fees, which are larger than is necessary to cover the expenses of renewing patents, and your Lordships will probably be aware that the renewal fees were all raised for this purpose in 1955.

The maximum fee for an application provided for in this Order, as your Lordships will see, is only £1, so it will not be possible, in any event, to increase that while this Order remains in force; on the filing of complete specification the maximum will be £15, but it is proposed to raise it only to £10 at present; and the sealing fee maximum goes up from £5 to £6, but it is proposed at present to keep it at £3. There are similar increases in the maxima of all the renewal fees, but it is not proposed to raise any of them. It has been calculated that if the expenses of the Patent Office do not increase more in the next ten years than they have in the last ten those maxima will easily be enough to cover any increase which might become necessary, so that there will be no occasion for presenting another Affirmative Resolution within that period. I beg to move that the Order be approved.

Moved, That the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, 1961, be approved. —(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I want to say only one word about this Motion. The noble Earl has not told us how much it is anticipated will be produced as the result of the increase in the fees. I cannot think it is going to a great deal. I wonder whether it is really worth while.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I give the noble Lord the answer to that now? It is £216,000.

LORD SILKIN

I feel that there is some justification for an increase in charges, and if there is to be an increase 1 think on the whole the burden is being placed on the right kind of application. I believe it is right that the initial fee should remain as it is, and if there is to be an increase it should be in filing specification rather than on the initial fee. But I hope that we shall not go on increasing these fees. We do not want to discourage people from putting forward inventions. Indeed there is a case—and I think in other circumstances I should be prepared to argue it—that there should be no fee at all in respect of patents. After all, the nation as a whole benefits by these patents and we do not want to discourage anybody from putting forward specifications and going ahead with his patents. I do not suppose that will carry conviction with the Government at this stage, but I think the fee ought to be kept as low as it possibly can, and I am glad the Government accept the principle that this is a service which has to be subsidised and cannot be regarded as one which must be self-supporting.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, the noble Earl has recalled to your Lordships the debates which took place in November and December on this subject, in the course of which I did, as I do now, declare my interest in the Act and now in this Order, not only as a possessor of two registered designs of my own but also in view of my connection with the chemical industry, which I am told accounts for one-sixth of the patents registered annually under the Act. My impression is that industry-wise there is general acceptance of the proposed level of fees under this Order, although the rise in the initial filing specification, increased from £4 to a maximum of £15, but in fact £10 at the moment, is a fairly steep one. The matter has been carefully considered by the Special Orders Committee, whose Report is on the Table, and it is not my intention to oppose the Order. However, having regard to the debates and having recently re-read them, I feel it is only proper first that we should recognise again the wisdom of the Government's acceptance of this method of fixing the fees as opposed to what was originally suggested; and secondly, that attention should be drawn to the level of the fees again.

I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his approach to the matter, for two reasons which I shall develop. First of all, I am going to assume that the filing fee is to be fixed at £10. Here again, I speak for the little man, the little inventor. That will mean it will cost him £14 in fees alone to apply for, file and seal a patent, and within the terms of these maxima that could rise to £22—that is, in fees alone; and I am assuming that he does all the work of the patent agent himself, namely, the searches, preparations of drawings, application forms and their presentation. The bare cost in fees will now be £14 and can amount to £22 under this Order. As several noble Lords emphasised in the debates to which I have referred, and the noble Lord opposite repeated just now, these inventions, these ideas, are valuable factors in our industrial life and in our export trade; they are, in a way, capital, and it would be well to do everything possible not to discourage British inventiveness.

Here I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord opposite. There must be fees. My feeling is that fees must be sufficiently high to ensure that the Patent Office is not swamped by scatter-brained, trivial schemes. But a nice balance must be made, not so high that the little man is compelled to get a backer. On this level I would join issue with the noble Earl; this question of having a backer must inevitably put the inventor in the hands of the financier and will, I think it is fair to say, inevitably greatly reduce the level to which the inventor may expect to benefit from his idea. I urge that the Board of Trade keep this aspect of the initial fees to the small inventor well in mind. It is clear that it is expected that the cost of the Patent Office should be borne by the fees, and I should have preferred to see this done by further raising the later renewal fees and keeping the initial filing fees where they were. One must appreciate that the later fees being renewal fees, it inevitably follows that profit is being made out of the invention; otherwise the money would not be there to renew the patent.

However, here we come up against the question of ways and means, and from that to the whole principle of whether the cost of the Patent Office should be borne by the fees or whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, in the interests of inventiveness, some share of the cost should be borne by the State. But this matter of principle goes beyond the narrow issue before your Lordships' House at the moment. I conclude by urging the noble Earl and his right honourable friend to see that the initial fees are kept as low as possible. Might I add that I am advised that whereas the Patent Office is up-to-date with its work, the same cannot be said for the trade marks authority, and I urge that in the interests of our industrial efficiency it might be well to keep an eye on the strength in the latter office in case there are delays there which could with advantage be rectified.