p r o d u c t i o n d o e s n o t presuppose the

PATENTS: DIGESTS
exercise of the inventive faculty but
(2) The patent granted plaintiff is void from the
merelyof mechanical skill, which does not
public use of h i s p l o w f o r o v e r t w o y e a r s give a right to a patentof an invention under
p r i o r t o h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a patent,
the provisions of the Patent Law." Int h u s
and( 3 ) I f t h e p a t e n t i s v a l i d , t h e r e h a s f i n d i n g , t h e c o u r t m a y h a v e b e e n
b e e n n o c o n t r i b u t o r y infringement by
r i g h t , s i n c e t h e Vargas plow does not
defendant.HELD:(1) When a patent is sought to be appear to be such a "combination" as contains
enforced, "the question of invention, novelty, or a novel assemblage of parts exhibiting invention.A
prior use, and each of them, are open to
second line of defense relates to the
judicial examination." The burden of proof to
fact thatdefendant has never made a
substantiatea c h a r g e o f i n f r i n g e m e n t i s c o m p l e t e Va r g a s p l o w, b u t o n l y p o i n t s ,
w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f . W h e r e , however, the s h a r e s , s h o e s , a n d h e e l p i e c e s , t o s e r v e
plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence, if iti s
asrepairs. Defendant's contention is,
i n d u e f o r m , i t a ff o r d s a
t h a t i n c o m m o n w i t h other foundries, he has
prima facie
for years cast large numbers of plowp o i n t s a n d
presumption of itscorrectness and validity. s h a r e s s u i t a b l e f o r u s e e i t h e r o n t h e
The decision of the Commissionerof Patents n a t i v e wooden plow, or on the Vargas plow.
in granting the patent is always presumed to A difference has longb e e n r e c o g n i z e d
bec o r r e c t . T h e b u r d e n t h e n
between repairing and reconstructing
shifts to the defendant
a machine. If, for instance, partial injuries, whether
t o overcome by competent evidence this
they occurf r o m a c c i d e n t o r f r o m w e a r
legal presumption.With all due respect,
a nd te a r, to a ma ch i n e
therefore, for the critical and
f o r agricultural purposes, are made this
expertexamination of the invention by the
i s o n l y r e - f i t t i n g t h e machine for use, and
United States PatentOffice, the question of thus permissible. Even under the morer i g o r o u s
the validity of the patent is one
doctrine of Leeds & Catlin Co.
for j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a n d
vs
s i n c e a p a t e n t h a s b e e n submitted, the
. Victor TalkingMachine Co. ([1909], 213 U.S.,
exact question is whether the defendant
325), it may be possible thata l l t h e
hasassumed the burden of proof as to anyone of his d e f e n d a n t h a s d o n e i s t o
defensesA s h e r e i n b e f o r e s t a t e d , t h e
m a n u f a c t u r e a n d s e l l isolated parts to be
defendant relies onthree special
used to replace worn-out parts. The third defense
d e f e n s e s . O n e s u c h d e f e n s e , o n w h i c h is, that under the provisions of the statute,
t h e judgment of the lower court is
an inventor's creation must not have been
principally grounded, and towhich appellant inpublic use or on sale in the United States (and
devotes the major portion of his
the PhilippineI s l a n d s ) f o r m o r e t h a n t w o
vigorousargument, concerns the element of y e a r s p r i o r t o h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .Without,
novelty, invention, ordiscovery, that gives
therefore, committing ourselves as to the first
existence to the right to a patent. Onthis
twodefenses, we propose to base our
point the trial court reached the conclusion decision on the one justsuggested as more
that "thepatented plow of the plaintiff, Exhibit D, easily disposing of the case. (
is not different fromt h e n a t i v e p l o w, E x h i b i t See
2 , e x c e p t i n t h e m a t e r i a l , i n t h e f o r m , i n 20 R.C. L., 1140-1142.) We do so with full
t h e w e i g h t a n d t h e g r a d e o f t h e r e s u l t , consciousness of thedoubt which arose in the
t h e s a i d differences giving it neither a new mind of the trial court, but with thebelief that
function nor a new resultdistinct from the
since it has been shown that the invention
function and the result obtained from
wasused in public at Iloilo by others than
then a t i v e p l o w ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , i t s Vargas, the inventor,more than two years

before the application for the patent, the

patent is invalid.Although we have spent some
time in arriving atthis point, yet having
reached it, the question in the case issingle
and can be brought to a narrow compass.
Under theEnglish Statute of Monopolies (21 Jac.
Ch., 3), and under theU n i t e d S t a t e s P a t e n t
Act of February 21, 1793,
l a t e r amended to be as herein quoted, it was
always the rule, asstated by Lord Coke, Justice
Story and other authorities, thatto entitle a man
to a patent, the invention must be new tothe
world. As said by the United States Supreme
Court, "ithas been repeatedly held by this court
that a
single instanceof public use of the invention
by a patentee for more thantwo years before
the date of his application for his patent
will be fatal to the validity of the patent
when issued."On the facts, we think the
testimony shows such apublic use of the Vargas
plow as to render the patent invalidNicolas Roces,
a farmer, testified that he had bought
twentyVa r g a s p l o w s , o f w h i c h E x h i b i t 5
w a s o n e , i n D e c e m b e r, 1907; and Exhibit 5,
the court found, was a plow completelyi d e n t i c a l
w i t h t h a t f o r w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i ff h a d
r e c e i v e d a patent. The minor exception, and
this in itself corroborativeof Roces'
testimony, is that the handle of plow Exhibit
5 ismarked with the letters "A V" and not with the
words "PatentApplied For" or "Patented Mar.12,
1912." Salvador Lizarraga,a clerk in a business
house, testified that he had received plows
similar to Exhibits D, 5, and 4, for sale on
commissionon May, 1908, from Bonifacio
Araneta, partner of Vargas inthe plow
business. Ko Pao Ko, a blacksmith, testified that
hehad made fifty plow frames in 1905 for Vargas
and Araneta,o f w h i c h E x h i b i t 4 i s o n e ;
Exhibit 4, the court found, is aplow
i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t p a t e n t e d b y Va r g a s ,
b u t w i t h o u t share and mould-board. Alfred
Berwin, an employee in theoffice of Attorney
John Bordman, testified that on September21,
1908, he had knowledge of a transaction wherein
Vargasa n d A r a n e t a d e s i r e d t o o b t a i n
m o n e y t o i n v e s t i n a p l o w f a c t o r y.
G e o rg e R a m o n S a u l , a m e c h a n i c o f t h e

" Ta l l e r Visayas" of Strachan and

MacMurray, testified that he hadmade
Vargas plow points and shares of the present
formupon order of Araneta and Vargas in 1906 and
1907 .WilliamMacMurray, proprietor of the
"Taller Visayas," corroboratedt h e e v i d e n c e
of the witness Saul by the exhibition of
t h e account against Vargas and Araneta
wherein, under date of December 13, 1906,
appears the item "12 new soft steel p l o w
s h a r e s f o rg e d a n d b o r e d f o r r i v e t s a s
per sample."Against all this, was the
t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p l a i n t i ff A n g e l Va rg a s
who denied that Saul could have been
s e e n t h e Va rg a s p l o w i n 1 9 0 7 a n d 1 9 0 7 ,
who denied that Rocesp u r c h a s e d t h e
Va r g a s p l o w i n 1 9 0 7 , w h o d e n i e d
t h a t Lizarraga could have acted as an agent
to sell two plows inNovember, 1908, who
denied any remembrance of the
loanm e n t i o n e d b y B e r w i n a s
having been negotiated
i n S e p t e m b e r, 1 9 0 8 , w h o d e n i e d t h a t K o
P a o K o m a d e f i f t y plows one of which is
Exhibit 4, for Araneta and Vargas in1905.
Plaintiff introduced his books to substantiate
his oraltestimony .It is hardly believable
that five or six witnessesfor the defense would
deliberately perjure themselves undero a t h .
One might, but that all
t o g e t h e r , o f d i f f e r e n t nationalities,
w o u l d e n t e r i n t o s u c h a c o n s p i r a c y, i s
t o suppose the improbable. Tested by the principles
which go to make the law,we think a
preponderance of the evidence is to the
effectthat for more than two years before the
application for theoriginal letters patent, or
before July 22, 1908, there was, byt h e c o n s e n t
a n d a l l o w a n c e o f Va rg a s , a p u b l i c u s e
o f t h e invention covered by them. To conclude,
we are not certain but that appelleehas
proved every one of his defenses. We are
certain thathe has at least demonstrated the
public use of the Vargas
SOTELO, MS | 3