Filipina

Inventor
Intellectual Property
Law Presentation

By Angel Lai
JD-3, CPU
Magdalena S. Villaruz
• Born on 1934, originally a rice farmer who became
an entrepreneur and inventor from Pavia, Iloilo.

• 1986 Most Outstanding Inventor of the Philippines,

and
1995 Best Woman Inventor awarded by the
World Intellectual Property Organization.

• 15 patented inventions, the most famous of which i

s the tiller bearing trade mark “Turtle Power” and c
ommonly known to Ilonggo Farmers as “ba-o b
a-o”.
Magdalena S. Villaruz #girlboss
• Her other inventions are the Mag Thresher, Winno
wer and Beetle Tractor and several others which hav
e helped the advancement of the Philippine agricu
ltural technology.

• She was the president of the Women Inventors

Association of the Philippines

• Member, BOT and Corporation of CPUAAI and CPB

C (1983 – 1989)
The Power Tiller “Turtle Power”
Commonly known as “BAO-BAO”
• A utility model for a hand tractor or Power Tiller
.

•It can plow 1.3 hectares of rice fields submerged

in water in 6-8 hours, which normally takes a car
abao three days.

•The operator handles the hand tractor through a ha

ndle which is inclined upwardly and supported by
a pair of substanding pipes and reinforced by a
U-shaped G.I. pipe at the V-shaped end.
Infringement and Unfair Competition
Pascual Godines v. CA and SV-Agro Enterprises, Inc
.
G.R. No. 97343 September 13, 1993
Facts:
On July 15, 1976, Philippine Patent Office issued Let
ters Patent No. UM-2236 to Magdalena S. Villaruz w
hich covers a utility model for a hand tractor or pow
er tiller.
This was assigned to SV-agro Industries Enterprises,
Inc by virtue of Deed of Assignment on October 31,
1979, which private respondent manufactured and
sold the patented power tillers with the patent im
printed on them.
Infringement and Unfair Competition

In 1979, respondent Company suffered a decline of mo

re then 50% in sales in its Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
branch and upon investigation, it was discovered that a
similar power tiller was being manufactured and sold
by the petitioner herein.
Upon petitioner’s failure to comply with the demand of
the respondent company for the former to stop sell
ing and manufacturing similar power tillers, the l
atter filed a complaint for infringement of patent and
unfair competition.

The RTC held the petitioner liable and affirmed by the

Infringement and Unfair Competition

In his defense, petitioner contended that he w

as not engaged in the manufacture and sale o
f the power tillers as he made them only up
on special order of his customers who gave th
eir own specifications; hence, he could not
be liable for infringement of patent and un
fair competition; and that those made by him
were different from those being manufacture
d and sold by private respondent.
Infringement and Unfair Competition

Issue:
Whether the petitioner is guilty of patent
infringement and unfair competition.
Infringement and Unfair Competition

Ruling
In answering the issue, the SC established the tests
to determine infringement. These are (a) literal infri
ngement; and (b) the doctrine of equivalents.
In using the former, “…resort must be had, in the fir
st instance, to the words of the claim. If accused m
atter clearly falls within the claim, infringement is m
ade out and that is the end of it”. The patent and t
he accused product must be compared within over
all context of the claims and specifications, to deter
mine whether there is exact identity of all material
elements.
Doctrine of Equivalents
Provides that an infringement also take
s place when a device appropriates
a prior invention by incorporating its in
novative concept and, although within
some modification and change, perfor
ms substantially the same function in s
ubstantially the same way to achieve s
ubstantially the same result.
Infringement and Unfair Competition

Ruling
Samples of the defendant’s floating power till
er have been produced and inspected by the
Court and compared with that of the turtle
power tiller of the plaintiff. In appearance and
form, both the floating power tiller of the de
fendant and the turtle power tiller of the plain
tiff are virtually the same.
Among other reasons, SC are compelled to arr
ive at no other conclusion but that there was i
nfringement.