ANGELITA MANZANO VS. CA

FACTS: Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent Office for the cancellation of Letters Patent for a gas burner registered in the name of respondent Madolaria who subsequently assigned the letters patent to United Foundry. Petitioner alleged that the gas burner was not inventive, new or useful; that the specification of the letters patent did not comply with the requirements of the law; that respondent Madolaria was not the original inventor nor did she derive her rights from the original inventor of the utility model; and that the letters patent was secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation. He further alleged that the utility model had been known by others in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before her application. The Director of Patents denied the petition because not one of the pictures submitted as evidence convincingly showed that the devices presented by petitioner was identical with that of respondent’s. It may not be used as prior art reference because such were not dated. No evidence showed to prove misrepresentation.

SC: Affirmed DoP for lack of evidence.

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. The burden of proving want of novelty is on him who avers it and the burden is a heavy one which is met only by reasonable doubt.

Pursuant to the requirement of clear and convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption of validity of a patent, it has been held that oral testimony to show anticipation is open to suspicion and if uncorroborated by cogent evidence, as what occurred in this case, it may be held insufficient. The question on priority of invention is one of fact.

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.

CRESER PRECISION SYSTEM, INC VS. CA, FLORO INT. CORP.

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.

KENNETH SAVAGE VS. JUDGE TAYPIN

FACTS: Petitioners seek to nullify the search warrant issued by Judge Taypin in connection with an unfair competition case which resulted in the seizure of certain pieces of wrought iron furniture from the factory of petitioners in Cebu. After the denial, petitioners filed for certiorari, claiming that respondent trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense since it was not designated as a special court for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), citing in support thereof Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 113-95; as well as Art 22, which prohibits retroactivity of crimes unless favorable to the accused and since the IPC repealed Art 188-189 of RPC.

SC: Dismiss the criminal case and search warrant, and return all things seized since Art 188-189 is repealed.

Courts may not vest exclusive jurisdiction on courts since such is a matter of substantive right, the Admin order is only to designate courts to exclusively handle certain issues to decongest case dockets.

LOTHAR SCHUARTZ VS. CA

FACTS: Petitioners applied for registration of patents with respondent Bureau and hired the services of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office to process their patent applications in the Philippines. Two employees of the law firm were assigned to follow up the applications and to get the firm's letters and correspondence from respondent Bureau. Thereafter, notices were sent requiring petitioners to submit the requirements. For failure to comply therewith within the prescribed time, respondent Bureau sent notices of abandonment which were received by the firm's employees in June 1987. It was only after the dismissal of these employees on December 7, 1987 that the law firm was informed of the notices of abandonment. Thus, separate petitions for revival of the patent applications were filed. The petitions were denied by the Director of Patents for being filed out of time. CA affirmed

SC: Petitioners' patent attorneys not only failed to take notice of the notices of abandonment but failed to revive the application within the four-month period. Such constitutes laches. 

SMITH KLEINE VS. CA

FACTS: Petitioner, the registered patent holder, filed a complaint for infringement of patent against private respondent alleging that private respondent appropriated for its drug Impregon, the active ingredient of Albendazole, which is substantially the same as Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbamate covered by petitioner's patent since both of them are meant to combat worm or parasite infestation in animals. Petitioner also pointed out that its application for a patent in the Philippine Patent Office on account of which it was granted Letters Patent was merely a divisional application of a prior application in the U.S. which granted a patent for Albendazole. Both the trial court and the CA held that the respondent was not liable for any infringement of the patent of petitioner in light of the latter's failure to show that Albendazole is the same as the compound subject of Letters Patent.

SC: Petitioner's evidence failed to show the substantial sameness of petitioner's patented compound and Albendazole. The identity of result does not amount to infringement of patent unless Albendazole operates in substantially the same way as the patented compound, even though it performs the same function or the same result.

The doctrine of equivalents provides that an infringement also takes place when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, although with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. It requires satisfaction of the function-means-and-result test, the patentee having the burden to show that all three components of such equivalency test are met.

Divisional Application only means is that petitioner's methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole Carbamate is an invention distinct from the other inventions claimed in the original application divided out, Albendazole being one of those other inventions. Otherwise, methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate would not have been the subject of a divisional application if a single patent could have been issued for it as well as Albendazole.