Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-30
TOATTRACT CLIENTS
Arguing on the Methods Employed
by Wedderburn & Go.
RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS
Hearing Before the Assistant Patent
Commissioner.
ISSION OF BRIEFS

After an interval of two weeks. proceed
ings in the case Of John We1derburn &
Co. required to show cause why they
should not be disbarred from practice, were
resumed before the assistant commissioner
of patents this morning in the form of
arguments by counsel on both sides.
The commissioners room was crowded
at 10 o'clock. Commissioner Butterworth
remained to hear the arguments. There
were present Assistant Commissioner
Greeley. Messrs. Stauffer and Winter
counsel for the government; Messrs. Doo-
little. Fisher and Small; and Judge Wilson
and Mr.. Ford, counsel for the respondents,
and Mr.. Bond of Wedderburn & Co. Elk
Commissioner Marble was among the spec
tators.
upon the resumption OF the investiga-
ton Judge Wilson said he would need one
day Ior his argument, Mr.. Ford thought he
eoold get through his argument in half
Gay, Mr. Small wanted three hours and
Mr; Stauffer said he could review his brief
in half an hour.
counsel Tor the government, then pre-
scented their brief in support of the order
OF the commissioner for the respondent to
snow cause 1t covered the case in a most
thorough manner, being embodied in a
brief OF seventy-seven pages. Mr. Stauffer
reviewed the arguments contained in his
brief. 80
While Mr.. Staufrer was reviewing his
prle1 tall form of a muscular looking
man in light suit of clothes appeared in
the doorway. Prominently displayed on
the lapel of the mans coat was one of the
Wedderburn silver medals. He listened to
the argument awhile and then came into
the room and sat down. the eyes of all
being riveted on his medal while there
was an effort to suppress the amuse-
Heht that was apparent generally.
The Governments Charge.
summary of the evidence by counsel
for the government follows:
"On behalf of the government it is claim
ed that 1t has been proved and is admitted
tnat improper searches We're frequently
made and were MADE either with deliberat e
intention. or arose from inexcusable neg
hgence' that misleading and deceptive re-
ports OF many preliminary searches were
sent on to clients: that the respondent pub
nshed false and improper advertisements:
Una snat IN many eases an overcharge of IS or
$40 was made and the money not
refunded: that deceptive pamphlets or cir
culars. particularly those entitled New De-
parture and Prizes on Patents We're used
as aids in spreading the respondents bust
ness that false and greatly exaggerat ted
valuations were placed upon apparently
worthless inventions by the respondents
In orGer to induce their clients to proceed
with the prosecution of domestic or for
elgn Applications or the attempted sale of
inventions; that clients were in many
cases induced to take appeals when cases
Were finally rejected by a primary exam
1ner to the board of examiners in chief
when the respondents knew or should have
known, that the inventions so appeaJed
were totally lacking in patentable novelty:
that though the respondents obtained yalu-
able consideration for prosecuting such ap-
peaIs in many cases they failed to prose-
cute them in any proper or professional
manner: that while the business was OBJ
tanned " John Wedderburn & Co., the
prosecution of cases in the office was done
In the name of John Wedderburn. and that
this is an evasion of rule Is of the rules
OF practice: that in many cases after an
applcauon for an unpatentabie invention
mad been filed and rejected by the office a
second application for the same invention
was filed by John Wedderburn when even
i. ne mad been unaware that the first was
unPatentable. he should have known that
the second was unpatentabe; that in many
cases clients have been induced to appIy
Tor patents in foreign countries upon in
Nentons unpatentable in this when the
respondents knew, or should have known
fhdt Sucn foreign patents would be worth
less: that the 1,Si2 cases referred to in
the March report of the examiners of the
patent office as being without patentabie
hoveiS. IN their opinion. were examined
VITA unusual care; that subsequent inves-
t'Sdtion has proved that their opinion
Was almost exactly correct. although in a
smaI proportion of these cases an incon-
'-fNtetbit HiuAIcufH OF DdtEntdDlllty may
since nave been found to exist.
Grave Charge.
1T is also admitted or proved that the
Respondents have been guilty OF unprofes-
sional practice in amending applications be-
fore they were filed. contrary to rule 81; in
writing up specifications from meager and
insufficient data and having such speciiica-
lions signed by applicants prior to the .x-
ecutlon OF the drawing, although the fee
Tor tHe drawing was received before the
preparation OF the application papers; that
they have been accustomed to starnD on
patents and letters sent out by them A
misleading statement TO the number of
patents obtained and sold each week; that
they have induced clients to file many APP
plications for inventions which though pat
entaple- have so small a margin of pa tent
aoillty as not to have warranted them, in
accordance with sound professional ethics to
have advised their clients to apply Cor s1Ich
patents, although they did in fact so advise
them. and that they still further deceived
their clients by misleading statement of
an offer Of 81 500 prize whereas in fact
no such prize was ever offered; and finally
that they, by means of silver medals which
IL appears were sent out in all cases in
which the invention was considered pat
entaDle and in many in which il was not
so considered, sought TO mislead and did
misiead ignorant clients to the value
OF their inventions"
The cases in which testimony was taken
were reviewed to show frauduleu. prac-
tees on the part of the attorneys IL was
shown that respondent had failed to make
complete searches in twenty-five cases.
these improper searches being due IL was
alleged in the brief, to gross negligence
The practice of WedderDurn q Co i'm
placing values on inventions was review
ed \ letter of the attorneys placing val
ues on inventions was recited, and the
brief continued:
The amount stated in the above letter
varied from scoop TO s20.0U In none of
the twelve cases in which this letter was
sent nad anything been allowed by the
patent Office In two Cases that of Slater
ana that Of Hawkins. admitted by Bond
10 be unpatentabie, direct estimate of
value from 5000 to sl5.uG was made.
This placing a value upon inyen-
tons without consideration OF the cues
ton OF novelty is, on its face, 4 clear indi-
cation of fraudulent and deceptive intent
on the part OF the respondents. and was
and could be for no other purpose than
that OF inducing inventors to place their
inventions in the hands of the respond
ents. and 10 pay them money for the prep
aration and prosecution OF applications for
patents" 8
Mr. Smaiis Argument.
Upon the conclusion OF Mr.. Staucrer's
argument. Mr. VIM. Small spoke He OPEN
ed by showing inventors 9enaraIl,, ,ol<