The evening times., 1897-08-30
FALSE REPORTING CHARGED
John Wedderburn's Case Called
in the Patent Office.
ONLY ONE SIDE Is STATED
Law Clerk Stagffer Prescpts the
Case OF the Cove rnsneut in Detail.
The Defegse CEens ard Outlines
Its Case Right To Practice ID-
vOlved.

Argument In the now celebrated wedder-
| burn case was begun at 10 O'Clock this
| morning IN the office of the Commissioner
of Patents
THIS cuse is the outcome of an order
upon John wedderburn, OF John Wedder-
burn & Company to show cause why the
| Commissioner of Patents should not refuse
! TO recognize him or them as patent attor
Reys or agents.
/ Chaeles C. stauffer, law clerk of the
J Patent Office, opened for the govern
ment. His argument was along the lines
of his brief. He reviewed the formal
| charges against the accused and sought TO
! establish that improper searches are made
| by the respondent corporation, an d that in
ventious were reported patentable with
out proper search. He charged that inven-
tions are falsely reported favo=ably by the
respondent corporation. Counsel sought to
establish that by reason OF false reports
! as to parentability OF inventions, clients
are deceived and defrauded.
Another line OF his argument waste show
that the respondents are engaged in a
fraudulent attempt to lncfte unskiIled per-
that false reports of the value OF inven-
tons are sent to clients by respondents.
Law Clerk Stauffer charged that the re
spondeIts gathered in and conduct cd cor
rpspondence with clients under one name
and prosecuted applications before the
Patent Office under another name.
He revic we'd the Triacca and the Witte
cases. As to the business methods of the
tie cases of willoughby and others
In his summary OF the evidence Law Clerk
stauffer said:
''On behalf OF the Government. it is
claimed that it has been proved and is
admitted that improper searches were
frequently made and were made either
with deliberate intention, or arose from
inexcusable negli gence. that misleading and
deceptive reports OF many preliminary
searches were sent on to clients; that the
respondent published false and improper
advertisements. that In many cases an
overcharge OF 81 or 81 o was made and the
money not refunded; that deceptive
pamphlets or circulars, particularly those
entitled New Departure aud Prizes on
Patents,'' were used as aids in spreading
the respondents business: that false and
greatly exaggerated valuations were placed
upon apparently worthless inventions &C"
IL is also admitted or proved, he said.
that the respondents have been guilty OF un-
professional practice In amending applca-
tious before they were filed, contrary to
rule 81; In writing up specifications from
neager and insufficient data and having
su"h specifications signed by applicants
prior TO the execution of the drawing al
though the fee for the drawing W as received
before the preparation of the application
papers; that they have been accustomed
to stamp on patents and letters sent out
by them misleading statement as to the
number OF patents obtained and sold each
week, etc.
Law Clerk StauffeT was followed by At
torney Tor the prosecution, who devoted
himself to discussion of the literature
OF the case