§ 39 After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
§ Restrictions on applications abroad by United Kingdom residents.
§ " .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no person resident in the United Kingdom shall, without written authority granted by the comptroller, file or cause to be filed outside the United Kingdom an application for a patent for an invention unless—
- (a) an application for a patent for the same invention has been filed in the Patent Office (whether before, on or after the appointed day) not less than six weeks before the application outside the United Kingdom; and
- (b) either no directions have been given under section (Information prejudicial to defence of realm or safety of public) above in relation to the application in the United Kingdom or all such directions have been revoked.
§ (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an application for a patent for an invention for which an application for a patent has first been filed (whether before or after the appointed day) in a country outside the United Kingdom by a person resident outside the United Kingdom.
§ (3) A person who files or causes to be filed an application for the grant of a patent in contravention of this section shall be liable— 1059
- (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000; or
- (b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.
§ (4) In this section—
- (a) any reference to an application for a patent includes a reference to an application for other protection for an invention;
- (b) any reference to either kind of application is a reference to an application under this Act, under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom or under any treaty or international convention to which the United Kingdom is a party."
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39, and I should also like to mention Amendment No. 205 in this connection. The purpose of this Amendment is to reinstate the second of the two clauses concerned with patent secrecy, which were deleted by this House, and I hope that the noble Earl will take a similar attitude with regard to this. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Oram.)
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, I will not disappoint the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, but I feel that I must take my stance on why I think that this, too, is a silly clause. First, it leads to the embarrassment of a British subject resident in Britain but either holidaying or working in America, because it puts him between the opposing fires of the British and American legal systems. If, while resident in America, he makes an application, that is all right in America, but he has broken the law in Britain. If, on the other hand, he comes home and patents something here, he has broken the law in America. It is entirely contrary to public policy, because we are putting the subject in a conflict of loyalties between breaking the law here and breaking the law in America.
Where does his interest lie? His interest lies in securing the earliest priority for his invention, so that we are writing into the Statute an incentive to break the law, which seems to be completely contrary to common sense and public policy. The other feature of the clause is that the penalty is set far too high. It is equated 1060 with the penalty involving a breach of security yet all that the man has done is try to acquire the earliest priority, which could be of the greatest value to this country. I do not believe that this clause has ever produced a result of any benefit to the common weal, and I know of two cases where it has very nearly led to gross injustice to two most distinguished inventors—one, Sir Christopher Cockerell the inventor of the Hovercraft, and the other a distinguished Nobel prizewinner. Again, I must express myself as not content, but I do not intend to press the matter to a Division.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.