USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc

Haynes (ref. 7), 220 District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware, USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., record of final hearing. No. 502 in Equity (1923), 3,1390 Trading with the enemy act approved October 6,1917 (New York, 1917), Record Group 131, Records of the Office of Alien Property, entry 15, box 1, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland. 

The War Trade Board appointed an advisory committee on dyes composed of representatives from the American dyes industry and the American textile industry. The committee recommended prohibiting the old importing agencies from shipping reparations chemicals. "Minutes of the advisory committee on dyes, July 24, 1919," excerpted on p. 40 in an untitled collection of evidence for USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., RG 60 (Department of Justice), Classified Subject File, entry 114 (Correspondence), Case 9-17-10-12, box 750, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Consequently, when USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc. opened in 1923, several issues were at stake. At the most basic level, the court case would determine whether the formation of the Chemical Foundation and the sale of patents to it violated U.S. law. Second, the trial raised questions about German chemical patents and patenting strategies. During the... 

They argued again that USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc. had clearly demonstrated a government right to license any patent from the Chemical Foundation and that the courts recognized a public interest in the formation of the Chemical Foundation. Therefore, fair compensation to the German patent owners would include consideration at least of Chemical Foundation patents used by the government. 

The number of exchanges peaked with five in June 1918, Minutes, American Dyestuff Institute, July 10, 1918, recorded as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 521 in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 9 (exhibits vol. 2) 1090 Robert C. Jeffcott and Harry E. Danner testimonies, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings, Alleged Dye Monopoly (1922), 453, 497 Minutes, American Dyestuff Institute, July 10, 1918, recorded as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 521 in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 9 (exhibits vol. 2) 1093 Minutes,... 

Liebenau, Medical Science and Medical Industry, 109-18 Metz testimony in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 3 1873-1907 Schamberg testimony in Hearings, Alleged Dye Monopoly (1922) 979-97. 

Will T. Gordon testimony in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 2 1050-70 Haynes, American Chemical Industiy, 3 260 The Chemical Foundation, Inc. Schedule of All Licenses Issued and Amount of Royalties Paid on Said Licenses from Date of Incorporation February 19, 1919 to December 31, 1936, FPG, box 17. On total sales, see John W. H. Crim to Henry M. Daugherty, June 29, 1922, NARA, RG 60, Central Files, entry 114 Correspondence, Case 9-17-10-12, box 748. 

Licensees of the Chemical Foundation and What They Manufacture, December 31, 1922, recorded in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., Defendant s Exhibit No. 89, 11 (exhibits vol. 4) 2653-54 on royalties collected, see Comparison of Value of Dyes, Domestic and Imported, Controlled by the Patents Owned by the Chemical Foundation, recorded in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., Defendant s Exhibit No. 117, 12 (exhibits vol. 5) 2703. ... 

Statement of Income and Expenses by Yearly Periods from Beginning of Operation to December 31, 1922, recorded in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 639, 10 (exhibits vol. 3) 5Al-42>, Eighth Annual Report of the United States Tariff Commission, 1924, 11 Garvan testimony in USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 5 2873-2906. The numbers reflected the American industry s production of dyes in which the patents had already expired. 

---