Alegeti limba romana!
Choose english language!
Choissier la langue francaise!
Ion Basgan Foundation
BREVETE

PRIMUL BREVET

Brevetul nr. 22789 al Regatului ROMÂNIEI din 18 Mai 1934

"Metodă pentru îmbunătăţirea randamentului şi perfecţionarea forajului
rotativ prin rotaţie percutanta şi prin amortizarea presiunilor hidraulice."

AL II-LEA BREVET

Brevetul nr. 2.103.137 al SUA din 21 Dec 1937

"Aparat rotativ pentru forare puţuri, cerere de inscriere nr. 739632 din 13 aug 1934 si pentru
care s-a acordat brevetul nr. 2.103.137 din 21 dec 1937, protejat pentru o perioada de 17 ani."

*

*

*

*

 

AL III-LEA BREVET

"FORAJUL PRIN METODA CIOCANULUI ROTARY "

 

AL IV-LEA BREVET

"Sistem de foraj rotativ si rotopercutant cu frecvente sonice,
limitarea efectului presiunei arhimediene precum si instalatia
si aparatura respectiva "

 

AL V-LEA BREVET

Brevetul nr. 3507341 al SUA din 12 Apr 1970

"Procedeu şi sistem de forare rotativa cu vibraţii sonice impuse fluidului de foraj,
cerere de inscriere nr. 645227 din 12 Iun 1967, pentru care s-a acordat de către
Oficiul de Brevete al SUA, brevetul nr. 3.507.341 din 12 Apr 1970, protejat pe o perioada de 17 ani"

*

*

*

*

*

*

Situaţia brevetelor de-a lungul timpului

EXPOSITION

THE INVENTION OF DR. ENG. ION BASGAN, ROMANIAN CITIZEN,
CONCERNING A ROTARY-PERCUSSION DRILLING APPARATUS FOR
BORING CRUDE OIL EXTRACTION WELLS


1. The invention has been registered in 1934 year in Romania when the Patent was granted, and simultaneously in USA at the Patent Office of the City of Washington. After examinations which took 3 years, imposed by the provisions of USA legislation for granting the patents, after preparing the file with advises expositions, at the date of 21.12.1937 it is granted to Basgan Ion the patent, with No.2.103.13 7( Appendix 1)
2. The patent is granted to Basgan Ion and his heirs for a period of 17 years with the exclusive right to make use and sell the said invention throughout the United State and territories thereof (Appendix 1).
3.

The patent brings the following claims of novelty:
-introduces and achieves the percussion movement of the drilling tool ( the borer) which is combined with the classic one, that of rotation(the only one until the date of the invention ),giving to the drill column a rotary-percussion movement:
-applies to the lower bottom of the drill-column a supplementary weight with the purpose to constitute a reaction to the hydro-mechanic effect of the pressure which acts in the opposite direction to that of advancement of the drilling tool (Arhimede's force) which in the case of drilling rigs has values between 10 and 30 tons. These two claims of novelty from the date of the registration of the invention (1934) are illustrated in the Patent, by an example which indicate the practical possibility of making the oil wells (Appendix 1).

4.

This new method of drilling, based on the introduction of the percussion and
applying of a supplementary weight above the drilling tool (the borer) has
revolutionized the drilling tehnics being used also at present time, since:
-it increases substantially the advancing speed of the drilling tool due to introduction of the percussion combined with rotation movement;

-they drilled vertical wells (holes) due to the supplementary weight added abone
the drilling tool;
-they have been diminished the accidents due to the breaking of the drilling •
column due to the fact that the wells can not be vertically drilled.
-it has been reduced the cost per drilled foot (meter in European system) with at
least 30% the benefit being registered by the oil trusts (Appendix 2).

5. 5. The using of the Basgan invention, i.e. of the rotary Percussion drilling, with heavy proportional drill stems, is confirmed by any documentation for a drilled well (drilling planning) ,by official publications, as well as by way of an expertise as that made in 1961 by Dresdner Bank.
6. 6. The Patent has been used by the oil trusts from USA and the Territories thereof by violation, theft .and without license;
7. 7. Basgan did not give to anyone the permission to use his Patent .He could not put in value his rights since it started the 2 nd World War.
8. 8. In 1939 an agent from the part of the American Patent office came to Romania with the intention to buy the Patent Basgan refuses and than he tells him that the war will start and nobody will be able to do any thing any more and so it was .
9. 9. The Patent being the property of a citizen from Romanian enemy country, on the basis of the law warning the commerce with the Enemy, at the date of 17 December 1941 the Basgan Patent is blocked and on the date of 23 October 1943 the Patent sequestrated by the Alien Property Custodian ( Appendix 3).
10. Being a sequestration, the Alien Property Custodian and the American Institutions at which afterwards the mentioned intellectual property was localized (the Patent), had the obligation to preserve it, use it, administer it, liquidate, sell or to treat it otherwise, including as concerns the restitution to its real owner .this being obliged to behave as its right owner. Any revenue deriving from this property had to be preserved in an account or accounts suitable for further disposal of the Alien Property Custodian. Therefore, it is not the Patent office who had the obligation to establish the accounts where to be deposited the royalties and at the same time to collect them.
11. The 2 nd World War ended by the signature in Paris on the date of 10.02.1947 af the
Peace Treaty, when USA had to restitute the Patent to Basgan.
By omission or with intention, this Patent is not included in the list of those restituted and it is explicable since the due royalties are big. - "Having in view the omission, the lawyers from Paris had in mind a penal trial against the USA Government.
12. 12. At the end of the 2.nd World War, Romania entered into the soviet sphere of influence, being occupied by the Russian troops, and it was installed the communist dictatorship regime. On the date of 22 nd April 1940,Basgan made a assignment of the Patent to a French citizen Jean Philbert Thibondet, in order to avoid the taking of the Patent by the fascist dictatorship, assignment which was canceled in 1961 by court decision, when the Patent was sequestrated. After the period of fascist dictatorship in Romania(1941-1945),which corresponds to the period of the 2 nd World War, and afterwards under communists, without any fault and being submitted to some persecutions, Basgan could not any more act in view of putting in value of his rights, especially due to the fact that the Patent were not restored to him (Appendix 4)
13. 13. The communist leaders becoming aware of the rights given by the Patent, tried initially to oblige Basgan to assignee his rights to the Romanian National Bank. Basgan refused. Meanwhile the Romanian National Bank found out from their legal adviser from USA, Ion Vintila, that according to the American Law, it is necessary that any action to be made only in the name of Basgan.
In 1960 it has been opened a trial by Basgan against Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, at the International Justice Court from the South District of New York, with No. 60CA4942, accused being several oil trusts (Appendix 5). Another trial was opened in Houston Texas against the Gulf Corporation and Socony. Both trials have been rejected the accused have shown that the title of the Patent is in USA (sequestrated) and that the USA General Attorney was not implicated
14. On 30 June 1960 the Romania American Treaty was signed, for setting the claims,
where it is stated that the USA Government will raise within 30 days from the date of
understanding, the blocking on any Romanian property existing in USA. The USA .
did not observe this obligations concerning the Basgan Patent, which was kept further
sequestrated.
15. On the basis of the law 285 of 13ih October 1965, by which it is assigned to the
denominated Ion Basgan:
"All the rights, titles and interests of Ion Basgan from and as a result of the Patent No 2.103,137, including all the rights of author accumulated and all the damages and profits recoverable by law or equity by their replacement in the past (Appendix 6). The order of restitution issued by the General Attorney has the character of a law and can not be interpreted as a formal act.
The order for restitution of the Patent does not limit in time the period during which Basgan can act in view of recovering his rights and it can be considered that thus it is eliminated the status of limitations (prescription). In the legal practice there are solutions given for similar cases, when they were paid the rights of intellectual property which have been sequestrated further to and as consequences of the War.
16. 16. In 1970 Howard Cox, the relative of President Nixon, respectively the Company Cox. Guffin, Weider and Klein, has opened a trial, but which was not more continued. Basgan did not agree to go on since in Romania it was at that time in force a law by which all the rights of the Romanians abroad belonged to the Romanian State.
17. 17. Till the year 1990, when collapsed the communist regime in Romania, it was excluded any possibility of some useful interventions in view of recovering the rights All the interventions were and still are stopped each time, probable by a group of interests of a person at high level in USA, being possible to be implicated also the American Secret Services.
18. 18. After 1990, in 1999 Basgan Jr. signed a transaction with Groupment D’Interet Economique of France, which also was blocked.
19.

19. In September 2002 took place a meeting in Frankfurt at the request of a person who represents an influential group from USA and a second one in October 2002 at New York with the solicitor Nicholas P. Giulliano, who represents this group.

It was a two days meeting, in the first day it existing the premises to be established the modality of actions, i.e. it was agreed on the idea concerning a transaction with the American Government, after they were fulfilled the following stages:
- The presentation of Basgan Jr. in front of the Attorney General for being invested - as Basgan heir;
- The summon of the USA Government to the International Court of Commerce in New York;
- Actions in mass-media concerning accusations at the address of some institutions of the Administration, including of the Government, aiming, beside the Basgan Patent, also the infringement of the human rights and of the principles that govern the American democracy. It was taken advantage of the War period and at the same time that Basgan lived in a country which in the period 1941-1945, was under fascist dictatorship and further, until 1990 under the communist dictatorship.

The second day the situation has changed, something intervened, it was insisted for a travel to Las Vegas, for a meeting with a high personality and with other solicitors thing that was not accepted by Basgan Jr.
In case of a direct action against the oil trusts, the opinions were that the defendants could invoke the limitation status (commercial prescription). Nevertheless, such a defense is disputable having in vie that the Law concerning the Divesting of the Patent does not limit the time in which the trials can be opened. This way, in order to be sure, could need perhaps a bill through the Congress in the favor of Basgan.

      Dear M,
      I refer to your letter-dated 06.04.2005 and let you know the following:

      a) By the Divesting Order no. SA-835 of 13.10.1965, issued on the basis of the Law 285 section(b) it is conferred the Patent to B, under the condition in which:
      - It is granted to B the right of author retroactively i.e. for the 17 years starting with 1937 year when the Patent was issued;
      - If the Limitations Statues is invoked we see that the assignment from 1965 take place after taking into calculation of the 6 year, i.e. the assignment is either formal or delusive. It is unlikely that a law enter into this last category;
      - The assignment is made without to be established a time limit during which to be possible to act for recovering the author rights and it is logic, since at the date of issuing of the restitution order (1965) it could not be taken any more into calculation the Status of Limitations;
      The conclusion that result is that, in the case of B, by the Law of assignement it was eliminated the Limitations Statuts.
      Is it really useful to the cause an intervention to the issuer of the act of assignment for clarifications and more details?
      Can the issuer give at present more details or it is necessary a correction by a law in Congress?
      It has to be taken in consideration that the Divesting Institution obliges the person overtaking the goods to behave as the owner of the goods, and to act in such a way that to protect and to preserve the rights of same.
      The rights of Author have been sequestrated in 1943 until 1965, initially being located with the Alien Property Custodian, and after wards transferred to other institutions of the Federal Administration, and finally to the Justice Ministry.

      b) The law suits entered in 1961 year had no object, since B, at the respective date
was no more in possession of the patent. Therefore had no quality to sue in court
those who made use of his invention. To remember:
      - The sequester was mentioned without justification between the years 1943-1965 and by infringement of the obligations of the American side assumed by the Pace Treaty in Paris from 1948 and of the Romanian-American Agreement from 1960 for settling the pretensions (attached);
      - The law suits entered in 1961 did not have as object the judgment of the substance of the cause. It was proceeding decided and imposed to B by the security bodies of Romania, in order to bring to the table of negotiations the American side.
      - In fact that the prosecutors din not attend the trial is an argument that support the above affirmation.

      c) From 1961 as before, B could not act according to his will. He was obliged to submit to the decisions of the communist authorities of Romania. They had been put pressions on B and he was threatening by the security in order to act the way they dictated. Do not forget that B was prisoner in a communist country and it is known what meant the communist dictatorship in Romania. He was pursued and this can be proved by the existence of a file of operative pursuit in the security archives, which aimed the recovery of the rights afferent to the Patent.
      I specify that in the year 1961 the communist dictatorship in Romania has issued the Decree 210 by which all the properties of the Romanians abroad, i.e. also that regarding the Patent, were taken over, respectively confiscated by the Romanian State.
      In 1971 it was tried again the opening of a law suit by the lawyer Howard Ellis Cox. Attached is a letter of this State Counsel of Romania, by which he asked the permission for B to come to United States for sustaining his cause, respectively to be issued for him a passport.
It is possible to provide you points of view of some specialists concerning the using of the patent.
      Also, the way of expertise must be kept in view.


      Many thanks,

      B.Jr.

ORDIN DE SECHESTRARE

DIVESTING ORDER

*

*

Acţiuni în justiţie

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

 

Re.: Proiect 7/66, - US Patent No. 2 103 137

1 A Rumanian citizen has come up with an invention that has been used by the whole petroleum industry of the world from 1934 to date.
1/1 For said invention, he applied for a patent in 1934 from the American Patent Office.
1/2 With the application, he did also pay all applicable fees for the 17 patent protection years.
1/3 On 12.21.1937, the inventor received the letters patent no. 2 103 137 from the patent office located in the city of Washington in the USA.
1/4 In this letters patent ("Patentschrift" in German), the United States as a constitutional state provides a guarantee by means of its laws and protects the originator and owner of the patent against any misuse of the patent (see page 1 of the US patent).
1/5 All companies, large and small, involved in deep drilling for oil, natural gas, minerals and water have used this patent in an unauthorized manner and without paying any compensation; in other words, they knowingly ignored and violated the patent law.
2 In the year 1939/40, the originator and owner of the patent attempted to sell this patent globally to an American company. However, the negotiations came to a halt due to the outbreak of World War II.
2/1 By means of two advertisements placed on page 4 of the trade journal OIL AND GAS on 4.22.1948, he again attempted to sell the above-mentioned patent; he was not successful.
2/2 On 10.20.1943, said patent was confiscated with all its rights and obligations with VESTING ORDER NO. 2427 in accordance with the US law of December 17, 1941.
3 On 10.20.1943, said patent was confiscated with all its rights and obligations with VESTING ORDER NO. 2427 in accordance with the US law of December 17, 1941.
4

Due to the efforts made by the originator and owner at the United States Department of Justice, Office of Alien Property, the VESTING ORDER NO. 2427 of 10.20.1943 was revoked by means of DIVESTING ORDER SA 838 of October 13, 1965, and the patent was returned to its owner with all rights available in accordance with the law; the document states verbatim:

a) Accrued royalties; 17 patent protection years + 4 war years + an 18 months extension in accordance with the piece treaty of February 1947 = a total of 22.5 patent protection years - until the year 1963

b) Interest

c) Lost profit

d) Damage compensation

e) Cost, fees, taxes etc.

5 According to the contract of June 16, 1966, the originator and owner of US patent No. 2 103 137 has in agreement with his government appointed me, Dipl.-Ing. (Graduate Engineer) Daniel Farkasch, to assert all his rights due him irrevocably and exclusively with respect to collection, settlement, transfer or sale.
6 The US patent no. 2 103 137 was used mainly, i.e. 90% of the time, by US oil companies in an unauthorized manner and without the payment of any compensation, thus seriously violating the American patent laws.
7 The amount of the claim was determined as indicated below:
7/1

It was determined that US companies carried out the following drilling work between 1938 and 1963 = 22.5 patent protection years:

     1,001,130 wells = 1,182,770,480 m

7/2

The average price per drilled meter for deep wells drilled between 1938 and 1963 in Louisiana, Texas and California is:

     78.72 US$/meter
     ===============================

7/3 Experts agree that the US patent no. 2 103 137 allowed cost savings of at least 30% per meter drilled, i.e., in comparison with meters drilled with the old conventional methods.
7/4 The amount of royalties is generally determined in negotiations. However, international customs and all the courts of the world generally agree that at least 10% of cost savings belong and are granted to the originator and owner of the patent.
7/5/a Total meters drilled x average price
     1,182,770,480 m x 78,72 US$/m .. $ 93,107,692,185.00
7/5/b 30% of the cost savings achieved
     with the use of the US patent no. 2 103 137
     93,107,692,185.00 x 30% ........$ 27,932,307,655.00
 

 

Compensation to be paid to the owner of the patent

 

7/5/c 10% royalties from the cost savings
     of $ 27,932,307,655.00 ..........$ 2,793,230,765.00
7/5/d 5 % annual interest x 22.5 years
     = 112.5 % ...............................$ 3,148,384,605.00
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                     $ 5,935,615,370.00
7/5/e 10% for lost profits ........................$.. 593,561,537.00
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                      $ 6,529,176,907.00
7/5/f 15% damage compensation.............$ 979,376,535.00
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                      $ 7,508,553,442.00
7/5/g 15% for cost, fees, taxes etc. ........$ 1,126,283,016.00
                                                     ----------------------------
7/5/h Legally proper and global claim ....$ 8,634,836,458.00
====
========================================================================
8 This global calculation of the drilled meters in the United States of America includes all oil companies that directly or indirectly drilled these wells.
9 This legally proper global claim in the amount of US$ 8,634,836,458.00 will be divided among approximately 150 - 200 American oil companies according to their percentage of meters drilled.
10 Since the United States of America is a constitutional state, it is impossible and out of the question that the American legislature would watch and tolerate the violation of their laws by their own oil companies, i.e., the continued use of this method today in an unauthorized manner and without paying any compensation.
11 It is well known that the American companies, in particular, are constantly on the hunt to uncover patent violations. Just a hearsay, indicating that one of their patents is being violated, makes them appear immediately with lawsuits and huge claims.
12 The importance and significance of this patent is underscored by the fact that the US confiscated the above-mentioned patent as alien property at the beginning of the war in accordance with the US law of 12.17.1941 and by means of VESTING ORDER No. 2427 of 10.20.1943. This step was allowed by international law.
13 After the legal claims of the originator and owner of the patent no. 2 103 137 were confirmed in writing with the DIVESTING ORDER SA 838 of October l3, 1965 issued by the US Department of Justice as the highest authority of the US courts, said decision tray also be interpreted as some sort of a judgment regarding the payment of the legal claims by the parties that violated the patent.
14 On the one side and considering today's status of the US dollar, it is known that the payment of this legal claim may cause currency-political changes in America; on the other hand and according to their published financial statement for 1964, it is also known that TEXACO, the second-largest oil company in the US, achieved sales of 3.57 billion US$ and that the annual profit was US$ 577 million, of which the company was able to keep US$ 281 million as net profit for 1964; accordingly, there is no danger at all that this legal claim filed regarding the misuse of the patent would cause a fluctuation in the currency.
15 According to our European conditions, this patent claim represents a huge amount of 34,5 billion DM ( Deutschmark ), i.e., a sum that covers approximately 50% of the federal budget. In my opinion, the possibility that this project will be processed by government agencies should not be rejected.

      Între anii 1937 si 1954, care reprezintă perioada pentru care a fost acordat brevetul, societăţile americane au executat foraje aplicînd invenţia dr. ing. Ion Stefan, realizînd profituri uriaşe, aşa cum rezultă din Memorandumul prezentat, fără a plăti inventatorului drepturile cuvenite şi care erau garantate de administraţia americană.


© 2007 Fundatia Ion Basgan - toate drepturile rezervate - Website administrat de Darewex
at