FACTS: Petitioner filed to assail CA’s dismissal of RTC’s grant of preliminary injunction and damages against respondent. November 1993, Floro Corp. discovered that herein petitioner submitted samples of private respondent's patented aerial fuse to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for testing, which lead respondent to send a letter to petitioner advising it of its existing patent and its rights thereunder, and warned petitioner of a possible court action. In response, petitioner filed a complaint for injunction and damages which the RTC granted. CA reversed.
SC: Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides that only the patentee or his successors-in-interest may filed an action for infringement. Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze. Therefore, it has no legal standing or cause of action.
Since Floro has a registered patent, it has in its favor not only the presumption of validity of its patent but that of a legal and factual first and true inventor of the invention.
No comments:
Post a Comment