Tobacco Documents Online

~ PHILIP MORRIS u.S.A. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 1. \ % r ro: C. H. Goldsmith Fro°`: H. Wakeham Subject: RICHHOND. VIRGINfA Date: April 16, 1974 G • Liggett & Myers Samples in the Third Series Tests at NCI a description of the nature of these samples because I felt the Committee was entitled to know in general why any and all samples are to be tested. In reply Dr. Gori stated that Liggett & Myers had come to his office with test data which led hun to believe they might have a way of reducing the biological activity of tobacco and that, therefore, they had decided to include samples which would confirm the results presented by Liggett & Myers. I' then stated that while this might be proper, it did not give us any idea as to the nature of the samples. Dr. Gori then referred to Dr. Bates who stated the tobacco is being given chemical treatments which might rnodify, their biological activity. Dr. Gori then said that the nature of these treatments was being kept confidential in accordance with the practice of the Committee in receiving confidential samples and that the treatment would be revealed at the time the tests were completed approximately two years hence. roup program inc u e t ree samp es w rc are stmp yLentified J d as Liggett & Myers samples. In the discussion of these samples at a meettng of the Tobacco Working Group on April 8 and 9, I' requested' G 1 d h 1 h" h 1 ~ The Third Sertes of skin painting tests in the NCi Tobacco Working ~ I then stated that if the proprietary nature of the samples simply involved keeping secret for a limited period the treatment being given the tobacco and that this information would be available to the public upon completion of the treatment, I had no quarrel with the procedure. On the other hand, if the proprietary aspects of the situation were such that Liggett & Myers had a patent covering the treatment and that they would, therefore, have a protected patented position with regard to the treatment at the end of the test, I would be concerned about the general question of testing these as confidential samples. I stated it had been my impression that the industry would not engage in this type of relationship with NCI and the Tobacco Working Group. Dr. Gori then said there was no patent. I was then told by Dr. Bates that this was incorrect. That while there was no patent, they had applied for and had reasonable expectations of obtaining one. Q- ~ ~ ~

7a ~~~ . It would appear then that at the end of the Third Series t st period which is approximately two years Liggett & Myers would have/tested jr chemically treated tobacco which at present evidences the reduction of biological activity and that this treatment would be a proprietary patent property of the Liggett & Myers Company. H. Wakeham