On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
An important decision has lately been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, touching the valdity of American patents in their relation to prior foreign patents. The American law provides that where a foreign patent has been granted for an inven- tion, the subsequent American patent for the same, in- stead of running for 17 years, shall expire whenever the foreign patent expires. Heretofore, the American courts have interpreted this law to mean that whenever for any reason the prior foreign patent became dead, the American patent shared the same fate. This proved to be a most disastrous decision for American patentees. Nearly all European patents are granted on the install- ment plant; that is to say, the patent is issued for the term of 14 or 15 years, subject to the payment of an annual installment; subject also to working within a year or two years, subject to the continuance of the working, and other inconvenient conditions. Failure to make one of the payments terminates the patent at once, and under the American deeisions such termin ation of the foreign patent also terminated the life of the American patent. The injustice of such laws and the hardships thus inflicted upon American patentees are apparent. Owing to long delays in our Patent Office by Interfer- ences or by accumulation of business, the issue of the American patent is in some cases so greatly delayed that it becomes necessary to take the foreign patents before the American patent is allowed ; and heretofore, when this has been done, the patentee has subjected himself to the risk of losing his American patent, in the manner above described. Several very valuable patents have been so lost. The Supreme Court has now corrected this obnox- ious interpretation. In the case of Pohl V. the Anchor Brewing Company, decided March 24, 1890, the court holds as follows : "There is nothing in the statute (Revised Statutes, section 4,887) which admits of the view that the dura- tion of the United States patent is to be limited by anything but the duration of the legal term of the foreign patent in force at the time of the issuing of the United States patent, or that it is to be limited by any lapsing or forfeiture of any portion of the term of such foreign patent, by means of the operation of a condi- tion subsequent, according to the foreign statute. "Section4,887, Revised Statutes, is to be read as if it said that the United States patent is to be so limited as to expire at the same time with the expiration of the term of the foreign patent, or, if there be more than one, at the same time with the expiration of the term of the one having the shortest term." This decision will he hailed with satisfaction by American inventors, as it will enable them to apply for foreign patents, in cases where they are obliged to do so, before the issue of the American patent, without risk of altogether losing their American patents.
