June 3, 1921

L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

That is not my question. That is during the period of the war. It says here, "between the said date"-that is the first day of August, 1914-"and the 10th day of January, 1922." That covers a great deal more time than the period of the war-to January of next year. I am asking the reason why this particular date is set,-if it is designed to protect the interests in danger during the period of the war on account of people being unable to perform all the conditions required by law.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

The treaty provision

was that no patent could lapse by reason of failure to comply with the requirements of manufacture for the period of two years after the war, or for a period of two years after the coming into force of the treaty. The treaty, although signed in June, 1919, became effective January 10, 1920, and therefore it should be two years after that date.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
UNION

Sydney Chilton Mewburn

Unionist

Mr. MEWBURN:

It seems to me section 4 takes away the right of the public in Canada, and I think there should be 'a saving clause inserted, if the minister would consent, to cover the equities of those who have prepared to manufacture. I think there should be some provision to protect not only those who have commenced manufacture, but those who have spent large sums of money in preparing to manufacture. I know one firm who spent $6,900 in engineering and preparatory work in equipment to manufacture under lapsed patents, and I think those people should be protected.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Section agreed to. On Section 5-time extended for paying fees. ,


CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I have an

amendment to propose to this section which reads:

Fees which have become payable under the Patent Act since the first day of August, 1914, may, at any time until the expiration of a period of one year from the -coming into force of this Act, be paid with the same effect as if paid within the times prescribed by the Patent Act.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Section agreed to. On Section 6-time extended for exercise of rights for 'filing applications.


CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I have an

amendment to propose to this section which reads:

Provided that such extension shall in no way affect the right of any person, who, before the passage of this Act, was bona fide in possession of any rights in patents or applications for patent conflicting with rights in patents granted or validated by reason of such extension, to exercise such rights himself personally or by such agents, or licensees, as derived their rights from him, before the passage of this Act, and such persons shall not be amenable to any action for infringement of any patent granted or validated by reason of such extension.

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Do I understand the

amendment to state that one can continue manufacturing?

Topic:   PATENT ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

"Provided that such extension shall in no way affect the right of any person who before the passage of this Act was bona fide in possession of any rights in patents-"

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Francis Glass

Unionist

Mr. GLASS:

Is that going to protect the people, for instance, to whom I referred? They have been working for five years along similar lines, and had so far developed their process that arrangements had been made for them to come to Ottawa and demonstrate it in a commercial way. There is no doubt about its practicability, but the question is, can it be made a commercial success. They have not made application for a patent. They are simply research chemists and have reached certain results as a consequence of their work.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

If I grasp rightly the suggestion of the hon. member, he thinks that provision should be made to protect people who never have made application for a patent? I do not want to misunderstand him.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Francis Glass

Unionist

Mr. GLASS:

No, they have confined

themselves to purely research work so far.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

Just what is it that we can protect? They have not done anything towards getting a patent. I have a little difficulty in seeing how we would be justified in making a provision that would extend so far as to say that everybody who has been working in the expectation that he will eventually come to the position where he might apply for a patent is to be protected against the fact that we extend this period of time to those who already have made application. I do not see just what prejudice that man is suffering by the passing of this Bill.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

He can of course continue his research work. The result may be that he will discover something for which somebody has obtained a patent, but I do not quite see that that man engaged in such research work is prejudiced by this legislation or that he has any existing right which we could protect.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Francis Glass

Unionist

Mr. GLASS:

Article 307 of the treaty provides:

A minimum of one year after the coming into force of the present treaty shall he accorded to the nationals of the High Contracting Parties, without extension fees or other penalty, in order to enable such persons to accomplish any act, fulfil any formality, pay any fees, and generally satisfy any obligation prescribed by the laws or regulations of the respective Statesr.Mr. Bureau.]

My understanding of that article is that any person whose patent had lapsed by reason of non-payment of fees for extension or otherwise might revive the patent at any period within one year after the coming into force of the treaty. In the same article provision is made whereby a period of two years is given after the passing of the treaty to allow any person to carry on the manufacture of a patent which he may have had at that time. If that fulfils our obligations, even if one industry is going to be adversely affected, what is the object of this magnanimous extension to Germans, Austrians and others of the time to enable them to revive patents which they are not entitled to under every obligation we have entered into by that treaty?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

As I understand, the present provision has to do with the extension of delay for the filing of application for a patent. I take it that we were not bound to give the period of six months so far as the treaty was concerned. But the hon. gentleman has just called attention to the Nolan Act which does grant such a delay, and which extends the benefit of that Act to the nationals of other countries only on condition that they reciprocate; and that makes it necessary, if we want to get the protection for our patentees in the United States, that we should give them this six -months after the coming into force of this Act. There will perhaps be a month or two between their position and ours because their Act came into force in March and ours in June.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Francis Glass

Unionist

Mr. GLASS:

Here is a case of a patentee who registered and obtained his patent in Canada in 1913. That patent was good for six years and expired in 1919. Now, by the treaty of Versailles he had the right, providing he paid the fees, to revive that patent at any time after the passing of that Act, that is January, 1921, and he had a further period within one year from that date in which to commence manufacture. I want to understand why, because the United States has passed certain legislation requiring reciprocal legislation on our part, we want to reach out beyond their requirements and extend facilities of revival to a man like that.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

June 3, 1921