in the work of the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association of the City of Boston. The remarkable success of this work is due to the permanency of the committee, its long-continued consistent work, and the conservative but careful treatment given to each case. The committee has acquired the approval and cordial support of the courts, which it relieves of some disagreeable duty; of the Bar, whose honest members it protects from injurious public attacks; and of the public, which, with the lapse of years, has come to realize that no community in the country has a Bar with a higher standard of ethics than the City of Boston. Irrespective of the machinery provided for the work, an inquiry into the moral character of applicants for admission to the Bar made in the same spirit will fully justify itself in any jurisdiction. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECTION OF PATENT, TRADE-MARK AND COPYRIGHT LAW Montreal, Canada, Tuesday, September 2, 1913. The Section of Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law of the American Bar Association convened in regular annual meeting on Tuesday, September 2, 1913, at 3 o'clock. Robert H. Parkinson, of Illinois, Chairman of the Section, presided. In the absence of the Secretary, Ernest W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., was elected Secretary pro tem. The Chairman in a short address called attention to the subjects of special interest to the Section at the present time, touching upon pending legislation and the new Equity rules. He also spoke of the unusual circumstances surrounding the present meeting, including the address by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain to the American Bar Association and the presence of the Chief Justice of the United States at the same meeting and felicitated the Section upon his success in securing an eminent representative of the King's Counsel of Great Britain to deliver an address to this Section, and also upon securing the attendance of one of the eminent leaders of the American Bar in our branch of the profession for the same purpose. The Chairman then introduced A. J. Walters, K. C., of the London Bar, who delivered an address upon the subject "Procedure in the Trial of Patent Causes in Great Britain." (This paper follows these minutes, page 789.) The Chairman then introduced Mr. Frederick P. Fish, of Boston, Massachusetts, who delivered an address upon the subject: "Letters Patent in Relation to Modern Industrial Conditions." (This paper follows these minutes, page 805.) On motion the Section extended its profound thanks to both speakers for their very able and instructive addresses. The Chairman then appointed Melville Church, of Washington, D. C.; George P. Barton, of Illinois, and Fred L. Chappel, of Michigan, as the Committee on Nominations. Joseph R. Edson, of Washington, D. C., spoke briefly on the subjects discussed by the principal speakers. The Chairman then introduced Robert C. Smith, K. C., of Montreal. Mr. Smith responded with a brief address, extending congratulations and best wishes on behalf of the Canadian Bar and dwelt instructively upon some features of Canadian patent law and practice, concluding with these remarks: "Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Canadian Bar allow me to express to you the profound sense of the obligation we are under to you in coming to meet here in the city of Montreal. We have felt it to be a very great honor and a very great distinction to our city to have the several great bodies associated together meet here in connection with the meeting of the American Bar Association, and every one of us feels that such a meeting must be productive of the strengthening of those bonds of amity, of brotherhood, of mutual confidence, and I may go further and say, of mutual affection, between us that have so happily distinguished the latter portion of this century." The Committee on Nominations then reported the nomination of Robert H. Parkinson, of Chicago, Illinois, as Chairman for the ensuing year, and Ernest W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., as Secretary. The officers nominated were duly elected. No further business appearing, the meeting adjourned. ERNEST W. BRADFORD, PROCEDURE IN THE TRIAL OF PATENT CAUSES IN GREAT BRITAIN. BY A. J. WALTERS, K. C. OF LONDON, ENGLAND. For a good many years I have been associated particularly with the branch of the law concerning patents and trade-marks in England, and when you gave me the honor of asking me to address you on the subject of patent law I asked Mr. Parkinson what subject he would like me to take up, and I was told that a complete change has been made in your procedure by the equity rules of February, 1913, and he said that as that practice was similar to our practice in England, he thought this would be a suitable subject. I have had an opportunity of reading the equity rules, and so far as I can see they do approximate closely to the present procedure which we have in patent causes in England. That has been largely the creature of statutes, and it was the creature of the statute until our last Act of 1907. We now have a very apt way of introducing new rules in practice when it is found necessary by means of the judiciary. Power is given under the Act for what we call the Rules Committee, which consist of our Judges, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice, and a certain number of Judges, and one or two members of the Bar, to make rules, and those rules when made are laid on the table of the House of Commons for six weeks, and if not interfered with they become law, and they never are interfered with, for it is nobody's business to look after rules of procedure, and so our rules are made in that way, and they approximate very closely to your new rules. I will deal with a patent suit in England as it is taken up there. There are two courses which we may take to launch an action for infringement. We either assume that the patent is valid and make no searches at all and wait until the defence is in, then if we find that any of the claims in the patent can be attacked successfully discontinue the action and apply to amend the patent. We have, of course, under our law, to support the validity of every claim of the patent, not only the claim sued on but the validity of every claim, and therefore if you launch your suit for infringement of patent every single monopoly that is claimed in any of your claims, however subsidiary, must be sustained, and if you can knock one of them over that ends the action and the defendant is successful; and with us he has to pay a substantial bill of costs, for we endeavor in taxation of costs to make the bill sufficient to free the successful man from the majority of his expenses. That used to be the general course adopted, but it worked hardship. The defendant who had spent a lot of money in hunting up prior specifications, could not get any cost because the rules provided that unless there was a certificate of a Judge that the particulars of objections, that is to say, all the grounds of objections to the patent, were proper, he could not get the costs. Under our rules, now, if a man chooses to discontinue at any time the costs can be taxed against him just the same, and we are not so keen on having certificates of validity at somebody's else expense. So the wiser course we have adopted is to make a preliminary search before the writ is issued in any action. Having done that and satisfied ourselves that we have a prima facie cause of action, we then consider the question of infringement. We have two branches in our profession in England— solicitors and barristers. Our barristers are expected only to advise on facts placed before them or to argue in court upon a brief. A brief with us is merely a short summary of the case submitted to counsel to enable him to see what it is he is going to fight in court, together with particulars of the testimony that is going to be given by the witnesses. Counsel is generally asked to advise whether or not what the defendant is doing is likely to be an infringement of the patent. Having fortified ourselves with that it is absolutely essential for us before we issue the writ to know exactly what it is you are going to complain of. lowed to rove about at all. We are tied down to we are going to complain the defendant is doing. We are not alwhat it is that Therefore it |