Patent for

method of increasing the effectiveness of a beta-lactam antibiotic in a mammalian

subject, which comprises co-administering to said subject a beta-lactam antibiotic
effectiveness increasing amount of a compound of the formula IA. The scope of
the claims of the Patent extends to a combination of penicillin such as ampicillin
sodium and beta-lactam antibiotic like sulbactam sodium.

petitioner again filed a Motion to Dismiss1 the case for being moot and academic,
contending that respondents' patent had already lapsed. In the same manner,
petitioner also moved for the reconsideration of the temporary restraining order
issued by the CA on the same basis that the patent right sought to be protected has
been extinguished due to the lapse of the patent license and on the ground that the
CA has no jurisdiction to review the order of the BLA-IPO as said jurisdiction is
vested by law in the Office of the Director General of the IPO.

petitioner argues that respondents' exclusive right to monopolize

the subject matter of the patent exists only within the term of the
patent. Petitioner claims that since respondents' patent expired
on July 16, 2004, the latter no longer possess any right of
monopoly and, as such, there is no more basis for the issuance of
a restraining order or injunction against petitioner insofar as the
disputed patent is concerned.

Upon the expiration of the patent, the patent owner looses possession of monopoly,
and, as such, there is no more basis for the issuance of a restraining order or
injunction

Court said that is correct.

section 37. Rights of patentees. A patentee shall have the exclusive right to make, use and sell
the patented machine, article or product,
1
and to use the patented process for the purpose of industry or commerce, throughout the territory
of the Philippines for the term of the patent; and such making, using, or selling by any person
without the authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of the patent.

utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller,

SV-Agro Industries Enterprises, Inc., herein private respondent, from Magdalena

Villaruz, its chairman and president, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed by
the latter in its favour

Petitioner Magdalena manufactured and sold the same products without authority
from SV agro and refused to stop when she was notified by the SV agro

Petitioner was charged of patent infringement and unfair competition

that he was not engaged in the manufacture and sale of the power tillers as he
made them only upon the special order of his customers who gave their own
specifications; hence, he could not be liable for infringement of patent and unfair
competition; and that those made by him were different from those being
manufactured and sold by private respondent.

The question now arises: Did petitioner's product infringe upon the patent of private respondent?

Tests have been established to determine infringement. These are (a) literal infringement; and (b)
the doctrine of equivalents. 7 In using literal infringement as a test, ". . . resort must be had, in the first
instance, to the words of the claim. If accused matter clearly falls within the claim, infringement is made
out and that is the end of it."

8
To determine whether the particular item falls within the literal meaning of the patent claims, the court
must juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused product within the overall context of the claims
and specifications, to determine whether there is exact identity of all material elements. 9

the doctrine of equivalents which recognizes that minor modifications in a patented invention are
sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal infringement

Thus, according to this doctrine, "(a)n infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a prior
invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, albeit with some modification and change,
performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially
the same result."
The element of novelty is an essential requisite of the patentability of an invention
or discovery. This is to ensure that patent will only be issued to those inventions or
discoveries that are truly new and not yet possessed by public. Novelty or newness
is negated by the fact that the claimed invention was probably known in a single
prior art device or practice. For instance, a utility model shall not be considered
"new" if before the application for a patent it has been publicly known or publicly
used in this country or has been described in a printed publication or publications
circulated within the country, or if it is substantially similar to any other utility model
so known, used or described within the country.

Lack of novelty or anticipation makes the invention or discovery not

patentable. If a device or 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.

__________________________________________________-

Copyright

It maintains that playing or singing a musical composition is universally accepted as performing the
musical composition and that playing and singing of copyrighted music in the soda fountain and
restaurant of the appellee for the entertainment of the customers although the latter do not pay for
the music but only for the food and drink constitute performance for profit under the Copyright Law
(Brief for the Appellant, pp. 19-25).

That is correct.

The playing of music in dine and dance establishment which was paid for by the public in purchases
of food and drink constituted "performance for profit" within a Copyright Law

SEC. 3. The proprietor of a copyright or his heirs or assigns shall have the exclusive
right:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) To exhibit, perform, represent, produce, or reproduce the copyrighted work in any
manner or by any method whatever for profit or otherwise; if not reproduced in copies
for sale, to sell any manuscripts or any record whatsoever thereof;

***********
act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her
failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners copyrights.

It does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be
copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished,
there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
injurious effect. Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners book
materials that were the result of the latters research work and compilation and misrepresented them
as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as
her source

there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit

*******************

The respondents averred that the works covered by the certificates issued by the National Library
are not artistic in nature; they are considered automotive spare parts and pertain to technology. They
aver that the models are not original, and as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright

whether the petitioners utility models are copyrightable and, if so, whether he is the owner of a
copyright over the said models.

Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality and

copyrightability.

By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least
minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it
possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity. [23]

Copying is shown by proof of access to copyrighted material and substantial

similarity between the two works.[24] The applicant must thus demonstrate the
existence and the validity of his copyright because in the absence of copyright
protection, even original creation may be freely copied. [25
A copyright certificate provides prima facie evidence of originality which is one
element of copyright validity.

It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership [27] and the validity
of the facts stated in the certificate.[28] The presumption of validity to a certificate of
copyright registration merely orders the burden of proof

WHAT IS COPYRIGHTABLE

It bears stressing that the focus of copyright is the usefulness of the artistic design,
and not its marketability. The central inquiry is whether the article is a work of art. [33]
Works for applied art include all original pictorials, graphics, and sculptural works
that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful article regardless of factors
such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability of
design patent protection

A useful article may be copyrightable only if and only to the extent that such
design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified
separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian
aspects of the article.
We agree with the contention of the petitioner (citing Section 171.10 of R.A.
No. 8293), that the authors intellectual creation, regardless of whether it is a
creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article produced on
an industrial scale, is protected by copyright law. However, the law refers to a work
of applied art which is an artistic creation. It bears stressing that there is no copyright
protection for works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic
features that cannot be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the article. [36]
Functional components of useful articles, no matter how artistically designed, have
generally been denied copyright protection unless they are separable from the useful
article.[37]
In this case, the petitioners models are not works of applied art, nor artistic works.
They are utility models, useful articles, albeit with no artistic design or value. Thus, the
petitioner described the utility model as follows:

Works of art (Class G) (a) In General. This class includes works of artistic craftsmanship, in so far as
their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned, such as artistic jewelry,
enamels, glassware, and tapestries, as well as all works belonging to the fine arts, such as
paintings, drawings and sculpture.
Since the light boxes cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as either
prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags or box wraps, to be properly
classified as a copyrightable class O work, we have to agree with SMI when it posited
that what was copyrighted were the technical drawings only, and not the light boxes
themselves, thus:
42. When a drawing is technical and depicts a utilitarian object, a
copyright over the drawings like plaintiff-appellants will not extend to the actual
object.