(See Computing Scale Co. v. Toledo Computing Co., 279 F. 648 (7th Cir. 1921), cert. denied 257 U.S. 652 (1922); Bullock Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 129 F. 105 (6th Cir. 1904), cert. denied 194 U.S. 636 (1904)). The impact of the bill would likely be that manufacturers like Deepsouth would simply elect to take a license under the patent, providing the patent owner with his just reward. The need to provide patent owners with a complete remedy and to preserve confidence in the fairness of the patent system clearly outweighs the danger that manufacturing operations might be shifted abroad in isolated situations. In addition to overruling the Deepsouth case, which involved the final assembly abroad of a patented product, the Commerce bill would provide analogous benefits for holders of process patents where a competitor substantially carries out a patented process in this country. The Deepsouth holding was extended to a process patents by the recent decision in Mohr & Sons v. Vacudyne Corp., 177 USPQ 307 (D.C.Ill. 1973). No reasons exist for treating process patents differently from product patents in this regard, and therefore, the Mohr case should also be overturned. о |