Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANZANO v CA
278 SCRA 688
FACTS:
Angelita Manzano filed PPO an action for the
cancellation of Letters Patent for a gas burner registered
in the name of respondent Melecia Madolaria who
subsequently assigned the letters patent to New United
Foundry and Manufacturing Corporation (UNITED
FOUNDRY, for brevity). Petitioner alleged that (a) the
utility model covered by the letters patent, in this case,
an LPG gas burner, was not inventive, new or useful; (b)
the specification of the letters patent did not comply
with the requirements of Sec. 14, RA No. 165, as
amended; (c) respondent Melecia Madolaria was not the
original, true and actual inventor nor did she derive her
rights from the original, true and actual inventor of the
utility model covered by the letters patent; and, (d) the
letters patent was secured by means of fraud or
misrepresentation.
HELD:
The element of novelty is an essential requisite of the
patentability of an invention or discovery. If a device or
1
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
process has been known or used by others prior to its
invention or discovery by the applicant, an application
for a patent therefor should be denied; and if the
application has been granted, the court, in a judicial
proceeding in which the validity of the patent is drawn
in question, will hold it void and ineffective. It has been
repeatedly held that an invention must possess the
essential elements of novelty, originality and
precedence, and for the patentee to be entitled to the
protection the invention must be new to the world.
FACTS:
Petitioner is doing business under the firm name
and style of SWAN MANUFACTURING" while private
respondent is likewise doing business under the firm
name and style of "SUSANA LUCHAN POWDER PUFF
MANUFACTURING. And holder
petitioner informed private respondent that the
powder puffs the latter is manufacturing and selling to
various enterprises particularly those in the cosmetics
industry, resemble Identical or substantially Identical
powder puffs of which the former is a patent holder
under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109,
Extension UM-110 and Utility Model No. 1184; petitioner
explained such production and sale constitute
infringement of said patents and therefore its
immediate discontinuance is demanded, otherwise it
will be compelled to take judicial action
MAGUAN v CA
146 SCRA 107
2
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
In challenging these Orders private respondent
filed a petition for certiorari with the respondent court
but was denied. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not in an action for infringement the
Court a quo had jurisdiction to determine the invalidity
of the patents at issue which invalidity was still pending
consideration in the patent office.
(2) Whether or not the Court a quo committed grave
abuse of discretion in the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
world. Accordingly, a single instance of public use of the
invention by a patentee for more than two years (now
for more than one year only under Sec. 9 of the Patent
Law) before the date of his application for his patent,
will be fatal to, the validity of the patent when issued.
abuse of discretion
appropriate remedy.
which
makes
certiorari
the
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
Ninety per cent of the plows in use in the Visayas (Iloilo
and vicinity) are said to be Vargas plows.
HELD:
(1) When a patent is sought to be enforced, "the
question of invention, novelty, or prior use, and each of
them, are open to judicial examination." The burden of
proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with
the plaintiff. Where, however, the plaintiff introduces
the patent in evidence, if it is in due form, it affords a
prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents in granting
the patent is always presumed to be correct. The
burden then shifts to the defendant to overcome by
competent evidence this legal presumption .With all due
respect, therefore, for the critical and expert
examination of the invention by the United States
Patent Office, the question of the validity of the patent
is one for judicial determination, and since a patent has
been submitted, the exact question is whether the
5
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
defendant has assumed the burden of proof as to
anyone of his defenses
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
On the facts, we think the testimony shows such
a public use of the Vargas plow as to render the patent
invalid Nicolas Roces, a farmer, testified that he had
bought twenty Vargas plows, of which Exhibit 5 was
one, in December, 1907; and Exhibit 5, the court found,
was a plow completely identical with that for which the
plaintiff had received a patent. The minor exception,
and this in itself corroborative of Roces' testimony, is
that the handle of plow Exhibit 5 is marked with the
letters "A V" and not with the words "Patent Applied 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 commission
on May, 1908, from Bonifacio Araneta, partner of Vargas
in the plow business. Ko Pao Ko, a blacksmith, testified
that he had made fifty plow frames in 1905 for Vargas
and Araneta, of which Exhibit 4 is one; Exhibit 4, the
court found, is a plow identical with that patented by
Vargas, but without share and mould-board. Alfred
Berwin, an employee in the office of Attorney John
Bordman, testified that on September 21, 1908, he had
knowledge of a transaction wherein Vargas and Araneta
desired to obtain money to invest in a plow factory.
George Ramon Saul, a mechanic of the "Taller Visayas"
of Strachan and MacMurray, testified that he had made
Vargas plow points and shares of the present form upon
order of Araneta and Vargas in 1906 and 1907 .William
MacMurray, proprietor of the "Taller Visayas,"
corroborated the evidence of the witness Saul by the
exhibition of the account against Vargas and Araneta
wherein, under date of December 13, 1906, appears the
item "12 new soft steel plow shares forged and bored
for rivets as per sample." Against all this, was the
testimony of the plaintiff Angel Vargas who denied that
Saul could have been seen the Vargas plow in 1907 and
1907, who denied that Roces purchased the Vargas plow
in 1907, who denied that Lizarraga could have acted as
an agent to sell two plows in November, 1908, who
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
Patent on improvement in hemp stripping
machines, issued by the United States Patent Office and
registered in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of
the Philippine, was the origin of this action brought by
the plaintiffs herein who prayed that the judgment be
rendered against the defendant, ordering him thereby
to refrain immediately from the manufacture and sale of
machines similar to the one covered by the patent: to
render an accounting of the profits realized from the
manufacture and sale of the machines in question; that
in case of refusal or failure to render such accounting,
the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum
of P60 as profit on each machine manufactured or sold
by him; that upon approval of the required bond, said
defendant
be
restrained
from
continuing
the
manufacture and sale of the same kind of machines;
that after the trial the preliminary injunction issued
therein be declared permanent and, lastly, that the said
defendant be sentenced to pay the costs and whatever
damages the plaintiffs might be able to prove therein.
The action therefore was based upon alleged
infringement by the defendant of the rights and
privileges acquired by the plaintiffs over the aforesaid
patent through the manufacture and sale by the former
of machines similar to that covered by the aforesaid
patent.
ISSUE:
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
The trial court did not decree the annulment of
the plaintiffs' patent and the herein defendant-appellee
insists that the patent in question should be declared
null and void. We are of the opinion that it would be
improper and untimely to render a similar judgment, in
view of the nature of the action brought by the plaintiffs
and in the absence of a cross-complaint to that effect.
For the purposes of this appeal, suffice it to hold that
the defendant is not civilly liable for alleged
infringement of the patent in question.
VARGAS v CHUA
9
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
57 PHIL 784
FACTS:
Angel Vargas, the plaintiff herein, brought this
action to restrain the appellants and the other
defendant entity, Cham Samco & Sons, their agents and
mandatories, from continuing the manufacture and sale
of plows similar to his plow described in his patent No.
1,507,530 issued by the United States Patent Office on
September 2, 1924; and to compel all of said
defendants, after rendering an accounting of the profits
obtained by them from the sale of said plows from
September 2, 1924, to pay him damages equivalent to
double the amount of such profits.
HELD:
10
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
privilege invoked by him is untenable and the patent
acquired by him should be declared ineffective.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
improvement by the private respondent of the process
in question.
IPL - PATENT
PATENTS: DIGESTS
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Director of Patents erred jn
ordering the grant of compulsory license
HELD:
Each of the circumstances mentioned in the law
as grounds stands alone and is independent of the
others. And from them we can see that in order that any
person may be granted a license under a particular
patented invention relating to medicine under Section
34(d), it is sufficient that the application be made after
the expiration of three years from the date of the grant
of the patent and that the Director should find that a
case for granting such license has been made out. Since
in the instant case it is admitted by petitioner that the
chemical substance chloramphenicol is a medicine,
while Letters Patent No. 50 covering said substance
were granted to Parke Davis & Company on February 9,
1950, and the instant application for license under said
patent was only filed in 1960, verily the period that had
elapsed then is more than three years, and so the
conditions for the grant of the license had been fulfilled.
We find, therefore, no error in the decision of the
Director of Patents on this aspect of the controversy.
13
IPL - PATENT