You are on page 1of 15

15##Interpreting#Claims!

!
Merill#v#Yeomans!
!
Summary:##
The!Court!resolved!a!problem!in!construing!the!scope!of!a!patent!
claim.! The! Merrill! held! a! claim! to! a! new! manufacture! of!
deodorized! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils.! Merrill! argued! that!
manufacture! referred! to! the! product! itself! while! the! Yeomans!
argued!that!the!term!referred!only!to!the!process!for!making!that!
product.!After!reviewing!the!patent!in!detail,!the!Court!found!that!
manufactured!meant!process.!
!
Facts:!!
Merrill! filed! a! patent! infringement! case! against! the! respondent!
for! purchasing,! using! and! selling! Neutral! Topaz! Oil! (odorless!
lubricant)!made!from!a!process!by!Tweedle.!Merrill!has!a!patent!
over! (1)! improved! manufacture! of! deodorized! heavy!
hydrocarbon!oils!and!(2)!superheated!steam!within!the!still.!My!
invention!relates!to!the!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils,!which!have!been!
produced!by!distilling!crude!petroleum,!or!the!crude!oils.!Before!
his! invention,! the! problem! is! that! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils!
produced! had! a! persistent! disagreeable! smell! that! when! it! is!
mixed!with!other!oils!it!was!the!predominant!odor,!and!pervaded!
the!whole!mass.!To!make!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils!free!from!the!
characteristic!unpleasant!odors!of!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils,!I!take!
the! heavy! oils! which! have! been! separated! from! the! lighter! oils!
and! from! mechanical! impurities! by! distillation,! he! then! distils!
from! the! heavy! oils! the! volatile! matters! from! which! the!
objectionable! odors! arise,! and! at! the! same! time! prevents! new!
formations!of!such!matters!by!keeping!the!temperature!of!the!oil!
in! the! still! below! that! at! which! these! matters! form! by!
decomposition! of! the! oil.! After! distilling! off! from! 20! to! 30! %,! as!
the! case! may! be,! of! volatile! matters,! the! oil! is! left! to! cool! in! the!
still,!and!is!then!drawn!off!into!tanks,!for!sale!and!use.!
I! claim! the! aboveRdescribed! new! manufacture! of! deodorized!
heavy! hydrocarbon! oils,! suitable! for! lubricating! and! other!

purposes,!free!from!the!characteristic!odors!of!hydrocarbon!oils,!
and! having! a! slight! smell! like! fatty! oil,! from! heavy! hydrocarbon!
oils,!by!treating!them!substantially!as!hereinbefore!described.!!
If! Merrills! patent! was! for! a! new! oil,! the! product! of! a! mode! of!
treating! the! oils! of! that! character! which! he! describes! in! his!
application,! the! defendants! may! be! liable,! for! they! bought! and!
sold,!without!license!or!other!authority!from!him,!an!oil!which!is!
proved!to!be!almost!if!not!quite!identical!with!the!one!which!he!
produced.! However,! if! Merrills! patent! is! only! for! the! mode! of!
treating! these! oils! invented! and! described! by! him! RR! in! other!
words,! for! his! new! process! of! making! this! new! article! of!
hydrocarbon! oil! RR! then! it! is! clear! the! defendants! have! not!
infringed!the!patent,!because!they!never!used!that!process,!or!any!
other,!for!they!manufactured!none!of!the!oils!which!they!bought!
and!sold.!
!
Issue:!!
WON! the! subject! of! the! Merrills! patent! is! for! a! new! article! of!
manufacture,!or!for!a!new!process!of!manufacturing?!Process!
!
Held:!!!
Merrill! has! described! and! claimed! a! patent! for! the! process! of!
deodorizing! the! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils,! and! that! he! has! not!
claimed! as! his! invention! the! product! of! that! process.! The!
language!in!the!specifications!aids!us!in!construing!the!claim.!A!
manufacture! of! oils,! by! treating! them! substantially! as!
hereinbefore! described,! is! a! claim! for! the! described! process!
rather!than!for!the!product.!!Throughout!the!application!the!word!
"manufacture"! is! used! in! the! sense! of! the! word! "process"! RR! a!
word!which!could!be!substituted!for!it!without!a!shade!of!change!
in!the!meaning.!As!it!can!here!mean!nothing!else!but!process,!we!
have!a!definition!of!the!meaning!to!be!attached!to!it!in!other!parts!
of!the!same!paper!if!that!meaning!were!otherwise!doubtful.!!It!is!
impossible! to! read! the! four! printed! pages! of! specifications! in!
which! appellant! minutely! describes! his! invention! without!
observing!that!they!are!almost!wholly!directed!to!the!apparatus,!
the! mode! of! using! it,! and! the! peculiar! process! of! distillation! by!

which!the!more!volatile!parts!of!the!heavy!oils,!which!contain!the!
offensive! odors,! are! separated! from! the! main! body! of! the! oil.! If!
the!oil!alone!was!to!be!patented,!by!whatever!process!made,!this!
elaborate!description!of!one!particular!process!was!unnecessary.!
"I! claim! the! above! described! new! manufacture! of! hydrocarbon!
oils,!by!treating!them!substantially!as!hereinbefore!described."!It!
seems!to!us!that!the!most!natural!meaning!of!these!words!is!that!
"I! claim! this! new! mode! of! manufacturing! hydrocarbon! oils,! by!
treating!them!as!hereinbefore!described."!If!the!product!is!meant,!
the! words! "by! treating! them! substantially! as! hereinbefore!
described"! are! useless.! They! are! not! only! useless! but!
embarrassing,! for! by! the! well! settled! rules! of! construing! all!
instruments,! some! importance! must! be! attached! to! them,! and! if!
they! are! to! be! regarded! at! all,! they! must! either! refer! to! the!
process! of! making! the! oils! for! which! the! applicant! is! claiming! a!
patent!or!they!are!intended!to!limit!his!claim!for!a!patent!for!the!
product!to!that!product!only,!when!produced!by!treating!the!oils!
in!the!manner!before!described.!
!
A!new!product!or!manufacture,!and!a!new!process!or!method!of!
producing! the! new! article,! are! the! proper! subjects! of! separate!
and!distinct!claims!in!an!original!patent.!
!
There! was! no! patent! infringement! because! Tweedles! process! is!
not!a!deodorizing!or!disinfecting!process!to!remove!the!odorous!
bodies!that!had!been!formed!by!or!existed!after!distillation.!It!is!
designed!to!so!conduct!the!distillation!as!to!leave!the!distillate!of!
crude! petroleum! free! from! those! odorous! bodies.! Tweedle's! has!
been!well!described!as!a!process!of!prevention,!while!Merrill's!is!
one!of!cure.!!
!
Philips#v#Awh#Corporation!
!
Brief!Fact!Summary:!!
Phillips! (Plaintiff)! sued! AWH! Corp.! (Defendant)! for! patent!
infringement,!and!contended!that!the!term!"baffles"!in!claim!1!of!
his! patented! invention! (the! '798! patent)! was! not! used! in! a!

restrictive!manner!that!would!exclude!structures!that!extend!at!a!
90Rdegree!angle!from!walls,!and!that!the!plain!meaning!should!be!
given!to!the!term,!rather!than!limiting!the!term!to!corresponding!
structures! disclosed! in! the! patent's! specification,! or! their!
equivalents.!
!
Synopsis!of!Rule!of!Law:!
A!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!should!not!be!restricted!
to! corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the! specification,! or!
their! equivalents,! when! the! plain! meaning! of! the! term! can! be!
used!without!causing!the!limitation.!
!
Facts:!
Plaintiff!invented,!and!obtained!a!patent!on,!modular,!steelRshell!
panels! that! could! be! welded! together! to! form! walls! resistant! to!
vandalism.! ! Plaintiff! sued! Defendant! for! patent! infringement.!!
Claim! 1! of! his! patent! (the! '798! patent)! stated:! "further! means!
disposed!inside!the!shell!for!increasing!its!load!bearing!capacity!
comprising! internal! steel! baffles! extending! inwardly! from! the!
steel! shell! walls."! ! The! district! court! found! that! the! accused!
infringing!product!did!not!contain!"baffles"!as!that!term!was!used!
in! Claim! 1,! and! therefore,! granted! summary! judgment! of!
noninfringement.!!On!appeal,!the!original!court!of!appeals!panel!
concluded! that! the! term! "baffles"! was! used! in! a! restrictive!
manner!in!the!patent!which!excluded!structures!that!extend!at!a!
90Rdegree! angle! from! the! walls.! ! That! panel! noted! that! the!
specification! repeatedly! referred! to! the! ability! of! the! claimed!
baffles! to! deflect! projectiles! and! that! it! described! the! baffles! as!
being!"disposed!at!such!angles!that!bullets!which!might!penetrate!
the! outer! steel! panels! are! deflected."! ! The! panel! also! noted! that!
nowhere! did! the! patent! disclose! a! rightRangle! baffle,! and! that!
baffles! angled! at! 90! degrees! to! the! wall! were! found! in! the! prior!
art.!!The!panel!added!that!the!patent!specification!"is!intended!to!
support!and!inform!the!claims,!and!here!it!makes!it!unmistakably!
clear! that! the! invention! involves! baffles! angled! at! other! than! 90!
[degrees]."! ! The! dissenting! judge! argued! that! the! panel! had!
improperly!limited!the!claims!to!the!specific!embodiment!of!the!

invention!disclosed!in!the!specification,!rather!than!adopting!the!
"plain! meaning"! of! the! term! "baffles."! ! The! court! of! appeals!
agreed!to!rehear!the!appeal!en!banc.!
!
Issue:!!
Should!a!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!be!restricted!to!
corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the! specification,! or! their!
equivalents,! when! the! plain! meaning! of! the! term! can! be! used!
without!causing!the!limitation?!
!
Held:!
(Bryson,!J.)!!No.!!A!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!should!
not! be! restricted! to! corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the!
specification,!or!their!equivalents,!when!the!plain!meaning!of!the!
term!can!be!used!without!causing!the!limitation.!!The!issue!of!the!
claim! interpretation! is! framed! by! ! 112! of! the! Patent! Act! (35!
U.S.C.!!112).!!The!second!paragraph!of!that!section!instructs!the!
court!to!look!to!the!language!of!the!claims!to!determine!what!"the!
applicant!regards!as!his!invention."!!On!the!other!hand,!the!first!
paragraph! requires! that! the! specification! describe! the! invention!
presented!in!the!claims.!!Therefore,!the!main!question!presented!
is! the! extent! to! which! the! court! should! resort! to! and! rely! on! a!
patent's!specification!in!seeking!to!establish!the!proper!scope!of!
its!claims.!!First,!it!is!a!"bedrock!principle"!of!patent!law!that!"the!
claims! of! a! patent! define! the! invention! to! which! the! patentee! is!
entitled!the!right!to!exclude."!!Also,!the!words!of!a!claim!are!given!
their!ordinary!and!usual!meaning,!which!is!the!meaning!that!the!
term! would! have! to! a! person! of! ordinary! skill! in! the! art! in!
question!at!the!time!of!the!invention.!!Importantly,!the!person!of!
ordinary!skill!in!the!art!is!believed!to!read!the!claim!term!in!the!
context!of!the!entire!patent,!including!the!specification,!not!just!in!
the! context! of! the! particular! claim! where! the! disputed! term!
appears.! ! When! the! ordinary! meaning! of! claim! language! is!
obvious! even! to! lay! judges,! general! application! dictionaries! may!
be!helpful.!!However,!if!the!ordinary!meaning!is!not!obvious,!the!
court!must!look!to!the!sources!available!to!the!public!that!show!
the!meaning!of!the!language!in!question!that!a!person!skilled!in!

the!art!would!have!understood.!!Those!sources!include!the!words!
of! the! claims! themselves,! the! remainder! of! the! specification,! the!
prosecution! history,! and! external! evidence! regarding! relevant!
scientific!principles,!the!meaning!of!technical!terms,!and!the!state!
of! the! art.! ! Claims! must! be! read! in! view! of! their! own!
specifications.! ! External! evidence! may! include! experts! and!
technical! dictionaries.! ! However,! placing! greater! emphasis! on!
technical! dictionaries! and! encyclopedias! in! approaching! the!
construction! of! claim! language,! rather! than! on! the! specification!
and! prosecution! history,! conflicts! with! rulings! that! the!
specification!is!the!single!best!guide!to!the!meaning!of!a!disputed!
term! and! that! the! specification! acts! as! a! dictionary! when! it!
specifically! defines! terms! used! in! the! claims! or! when! it! defines!
terms! by! implication.! ! The! main! problem! with! considering! the!
dictionary! as! so! important! is! that! it! focuses! the! inquiry! on! the!
abstract! meaning! of! words! rather! than! on! the! meaning! of! claim!
terms!within!the!context!of!the!patent.!!The!"ordinary!meaning"!
of!a!claim!term!when!viewed!properly!is!the!meaning!an!ordinary!
artisan! would! determine! after! reading! the! entire! patent.! ! The!
problem! resulting! from! the! district! court! starting! every! case!
using!the!broad!dictionary!definition!of!a!word!is!a!failure!to!fully!
understand! how! the! specification! totally! limits! that! definition!
and! the! error! will! systematically! cause! the! construction! of! the!
claim! to! be! overly! expansive.! ! If! the! court! focuses! from! the!
beginning!on!how!the!patentee!used!the!claim!term!in!the!claims,!
specification,! and! prosecution! history,! the! risk! of! systematic!
overRbreadth!is!greatly!reduced,!rather!than!starting!with!a!broad!
definition! and! then! cutting! it! down.! ! In! cases! that! are! hard! to!
determine!whether!a!person!of!skill!in!the!art!would!understand!
the!embodiments!to! define! the! outer! limits! of! the! claim! term! or!
just!to!be!correct!in!nature,!trying!to!resolve!that!problem!in!the!
context! of! the! particular! patent! is! likely! to! capture! the! scope! of!
the!actual!invention!more!accurately!than!either!strictly!limiting!
the! scope! of! the! claims! to! the! embodiments! disclosed! in! the!
specification! or! separating! the! claim! language! from! the!
specification.! ! It! is! clear! from! Claim! 1! when! applying! these!
principles!that!the!baffles!must!be!made!of!steel,!must!be!a!part!of!

the!loadRbearing!means!for!the!wall!section,!and!must!be!pointed!
inward!from!the!walls.!!Both!parties!specify!that!"baffles"!refers!
to!objects!that!check,!impede,!or!obstruct!the!flow!of!something.!!
The!other!claims!of!the!'798!patent!and!the!specification!support!
the! conclusion! that! persons! of! ordinary! skill! in! the! art! would!
understand! the! baffles! written! in! the! patent! to! be! loadRbearing!
objects! with! the! purpose! of! checking,! impeding,! or! obstructing!
flow.! ! Several! times! the! specification! discusses! positioning! the!
baffles!so!as!to!deflect!projectiles.!!It!is!clear!in!the!patent!that!the!
invention! envisions! baffles! that! serve! that! function,! but! it! does!
not!imply!that!in!order!to!qualify!as!baffles!within!the!meaning!of!
the! claims,! the! internal! support! structures! must! serve! the!
projectileRdeflecting! function! in! all! the! embodiments! of! all! the!
claims.! ! Several! other! purposes! are! served! by! the! baffles! as!
discussed! in! the! specification,! such! as! providing! structural!
support.! ! Also,! the! specification! provides! for! "overlapping! and!
interlocking!the!baffles!to!produce!substantially!an!intermediate!
barrier! wall! between! the! opposite! [wall]! faces"! to! create!
insulation!compartments.!!The!fact!that!the!written!description!of!
the!'798!patent!sets!forth!multiple!objectives!to!be!served!by!the!
baffles! recited! in! the! claims! confirms! that! the! term! "baffles"!
should!not!be!read!restrictively!to!require!that!the!baffles!in!each!
case! must! serve! all! recited! functions.! ! In! this! case,! although!
deflecting! projectiles! is! an! advantage! of! the! baffles,! it! is! not!
required! by! the! patent! that! inward! extending! structures! always!
be! capable! of! performing! that! function.! ! Accordingly,! the!
disclosure!and!claims!of!the!'798!patent!would!not!be!interpreted!
by!a!person!skilled!in!the!art!to!mean!that!a!structure!extending!
inward!from!one!of!the!wall!faces!is!a!"baffle"!if!it!is!at!an!acute!or!
obtuse!angle,!but!is!not!a!"baffle"!if!it!is!disposed!at!a!right!angle.!!
Remanded.!
!
Discussion:!!
This! case! has! resulted! in! limited! exclusive! reliance! on!
dictionaries! as! an! "objective"! and! presumptive! source! for!
meanings! of! claim! terms.! ! After! Phillips,! courts! may! still! use!
dictionaries! along! with! the! specification,! especially! when! no!

included! evidence! exists! in! the! specification! regarding! a! term's!


specialized!meaning,!but!the!specification!must!be!referenced!to!
the!extent!possible.!
!
Markman#v#Westview#Instruments!
!
Brief!Fact!Summary:!!
The! Petitioner,! Markman! (Petitioner),! brought! a! patent!
infringement!suit!against!the!Respondent,!Westview!Instruments,!
Inc.!(Respondent).!The!jury!interpreted!expert!witness!testimony!
and! held! for! the! Petitioner.! The! Judge! directed! verdict! for! the!
Respondent! stating! that! the! jury! interpreted! the! information!
incorrectly.!!
Synopsis!of!Rule!of!Law.!In!some!cases!where!it!is!unclear!as!to!
whether!a!judge!or!jury!should!decide!upon!terms!of!art!in!a!case!
that! is! traditionally! decided! by! a! jury,! precedent! states! that,!
judges,! because! of! their! experience! may! be! more! capable! to!
define!the!terms.!
!
Facts:!!
The! Petitioner! in! this! infringement! suit! owned! a! patent! for! his!
inventory! control! and! reporting! system! for! dry! cleaning! stores.!
The!patent!described!a!system!that!could!monitor!and!report!the!
status,! location! and! movement! of! clothing! in! a! dryRcleaning!
establishment.! The! system! consisted! of! a! keyboard! and! data!
processor! to! generate! written! records! for! each! transaction! and!
included! a! bar! code! readable! by! optical! detectors! operated! by!
employees!who!logged!the!progress!of!clothing!through!the!dryR
cleaning! process.! The! Respondents! product,! the! Exponent,! also!
included! a! keyboard! and! processor! and! it! listed! charges! for! the!
dryRcleaning!services!on!barRcoded!tickets!that!could!be!read!by!
portable! optical! detectors.! Petitioner! brought! an! infringement!
suit! against! Respondent! and! Althon! Enterprises,! an! operator! of!
dryRcleaning! establishments! using! Respondents! products.!
Respondent!answered!that!Petitioners!patent!was!not!infringed!
by! its! system! because! the! Respondents! system! functioned!
merely!to!record!an!inventory!of!receivables!by!tracking!invoices!

and! transaction! totals,! rather! than! recording! and! tracking! an!


inventory!of!articles!of!clothing.!Part!of!the!dispute!hinged!upon!
the! meaning! of! the! word! inventory.! A! jury! heard! the! case! and!
heard! from! one! of! Petitioners! witness! who! testified! about! the!
meaning!of!the!claim!language.!The!jury!compared!the!patent!to!
Respondents! device! and! found! an! infringement! of! Petitioners!
claim.! The! District! Court! nevertheless! granted! Respondents!
deferred!motion!for!judgment!as!a!matter!of!law,!reasoning!that!
the! term! inventory! in! Petitioners! patent! encompassed! both!
cash! inventory! and! the! actual! physical! inventory! of! articles! of!
clothing.! Since! Respondents! system! could! not! track! items! it!
directed!a!verdict!on!the!ground!that!Respondents!device!did!not!
have! the! means! to! maintain! an! inventory! total! and! could! not!
detect! and! localize! additions! to! inventory! as! well! as! deletions!
from!it!as!required!by!Petitioners!claim.!Petitioner!appealed!and!
argued! that! the! District! Court! erred! in! substituting! its!
construction! of! the! disputed! claim! term! inventory! for! the!
construction! the! jury! had! given! it.! The! United! States! Court! of!
Appeals! for! the! Federal! Circuit! affirmed,! holding! the!
interpretation! of! claim! terms! to! be! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of!
the! court! and! the! Seventh! Amendment! of! the! United! States!
Constitution!(Constitution)!to!be!consistent!with!that!conclusion.!
!
Issue:!!
Whether! the! interpretation! of! a! soRcalled! patent! claim,! the!
portion! of! the! patent! document! that! defines! the! scope! of! the!
patentees! rights,! is! a! matter! of! law! reserved! entirely! for! the!
court,!or!subject!to!a!Seventh!Amendment!guarantee!that!a!jury!
will! determine! the! meaning! of! any! disputed! term! of! art! about!
which!expert!testimony!is!offered.!
!
Held:!!
Construction!of!a!patent,!including!terms!of!art!within!its!claim,!is!
exclusively! within! the! province! of! the! court.! Accordingly,! the!
court!held!that!the!interpretation!of!the!word!inventory!in!this!
case! was! an! issue! for! the! judge,! not! the! jury! and! affirmed! the!
decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!for!the!Federal!Circuit.!

!
Discussion:!!
Part! of! the! dispute! hinged! upon! the! meaning! of! the! word!
inventory!and!its!interpretation!by!the!jury!and!judge.!The!first!
question! the! court! had! to! address! was! whether! historically,! the!
cause!of!action!was!one!that!was!either!tried!at!law!or!in!equity.!If!
a! question! of! law,! the! second! question! was! whether! the!
particular!trial!decision!must!fall!to!the!jury!in!order!to!preserve!
the! substance! of! the! commonRlaw! right! as! it! existed! in! 1791.! As!
for!the!first!question,!the!Court!compared!the!statutory!action!to!
18thRcentury! actions! brought! in! the! courts! of! England! prior! to!
the! merger! of! the! courts! of! law! and! equity.! It! found! that! since!
patent!infringement!cases!were!historically!tried!at!law,!that!this!
case!was!no!different.!The!second!question!was!the!more!difficult!
one.! It! asked! whether! a! particular! issue! occurring! within! a! jury!
trial! (here! the! construction! of! a! patent! claim)! was! itself!
necessarily! a! jury! issue,! thereby! to! be! decided! by! a! jury.! But!
when,! as! here,! history! provided! no! clear! answer.! The! Court! had!
to!make!a!judgment!about!the!scope!of!the!Seventh!Amendment!
of!the!Constitution!guarantee!based!on!existing!precedent.!Where!
history! answered! no! questions,! precedent! allowed! functional!
considerations! to! choose! whether! judges! or! juries! were! better!
able!to!define!terms!of!art.!It!found!that!since!patent!construction!
in!particular!was!a!special!occupation,!requiring!special!training!
and! practice,! the! judge! due! to! his! training! and! discipline! was!
more! likely! to! give! a! proper! interpretation! to! such! cases! than!
would! a! jury.! Therefore! the! judge! was! more! likely! to! be! correct!
and! accurate! in! performing! such! a! duty! than! a! jury! could! be!
expected!to!be.!!
!
#
#

17##I.#Assessors!
!
Frank#v#Benito!
!
Emergency!Recitation:!
! FRANK! and! GOHN! had! a! US! patent! over! a! hempRstripping!
machine!(with!a!distinct!feature!of!a!wooden!spindle)!which!they!
also!had!duly!registered!in!the!Philippines.!
! They! claim! that! BENITO! infringed! their! patent! when! he!
manufactured! and! sold! substantially! the! same! machine! (with! a!
similar! spindle! but! made! of! metal)! with! essentially! the! same!
utility.! BENITO! claims! that! he! never! knew! of! the! patent,! never!
intended!to!imitate!it,!and!his!spindle!was!more!efficient.!
!ISSUE:!W/N!the!patent!was!infringed!!!YES!
!FRANK!and!GOHNs!patent!is!the!spindle!upon!which!they!rely,!
together!with!its!specified!
manner!and!mode!of!operation,!and!in!the!final!analysis,!it!must!
be! conceded! that! the! basic! principle! of! the! spindle! upon! which!
the! BENITO! relies! is! founded! upon! the! basic! principle! of! the!
spindle!for!which!FRANK!and!GOHN!have!a!patent.!
! BENITO! contends! that! the! basic! principle! of! the! spindle! was! a!
very! old! one! in! mechanics,! and! that! there! was! nothing! new! or!
novel! in! the! application! of! it! by! the! plaintiffs.! Be! that! as! it! may,!
the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! with! its!
specifications!which!are!attached!to,!and!made!part!of,!the!patent,!
and!the!proof!is!conclusive!that!the!defendant!is!infringing!upon!
the!basic!principle!of!the!spindle!as!it!is!defined!and!specified!in!
plaintiffs'!patent.!
!
FACTS:!
!Patrick!Henry!FRANK!and!William!Henry!GOHN!were!owners!of!
a!patent!covering!hempR!
stripping! machine! No.! 1519579! issued! to! them! by! the! United!
States!Patent!Office!of!December!16,!1924,!and!duly!registered!in!
the! Bureau! of! Commerce! and! Industry! of! the! Philippine! Islands!
under!the!provisions!of!Act!No.!2235!

!The!important!feature!of!the!machine!"is!a!spindle!upon!which!
the!hemp!to!be!stripped!is!wound!in!the!process!of!stripping."!
!Specifications!of!the!patent:!
o!1.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!
a!supporting!portion!on!which!
the! hemp! leaves! may! rest! and! having! also! an! upright!
bracket! portion,! a! lever! of! angular! formation! pivotally!
attached!substantially!at!the!juncture!of!the!arms!thereof!
of!the!bracket!portion!of!the!stripping!head,!whereby!one!
arm! of! the! lever! overlies! the! supporting! portion! of! the!
stripping! head,! a! blade! carried! by! said! one! arm! of! the!
lever! for! cooperating! with! said! supporting,! means!
connected! with! the! other! arm! of! the! lever! and! actuating!
the! latter! to! continously! urge! the! blade! toward! said!
supporting! portion! of! the! stripping! head,! and! a! rotatable!
spindle! positioned! adjacent! to! said! stripping! head,! said!
spindle! being! adapted! to! be! engaged! by! hemp! leaves!
extending!across!said!supporting!portion!of!the!stripping!
head! underneath! said! blade! and! being! operable! to! draw!
said!hemp!leaves!in!the!direction!of!their!length!between!
said! supporting! portion! of! the! stripping! head! and! said!
blade.!
o!2.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!
a! horizontal! table! portion,! a! rest! supported! upon! said!
table! portion,! a! stripping! knife! supported! upon! the! table!
for! movement! into! and! out! of! position! to! cooperate! with!
the!rest!to!strip!hemp!leaves!drawn!between!the!knife!and!
the!rest,!and!power!driven!means!adapted!to!be!engaged!
with! said! hemp! leaves! and! to! pull! the! latter! between! the!
knife! and! rest,! said! power! driven! means! including! a!
rotating! spindle,! said! spindle! being! free! at! one! end! and!
tapering!regularly!toward!its!free!end.!
o!3.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!
a!horizontal!table!portion!and!an!upright!bracket!portion!
a! rest! holder! adjustably! on! the! table! portion,! a! rest!
resiliently!supported!by!the!holder,!a!knife!carrying!lever!
of! angular! formation! and! being! pivotally! attached!

substantially! at! the! juncture! of! the! arms! thereof! to! the!
bracket!portion!of!the!stripping!head,!whereby!one!arm!of!
the!lever!overlies!the!rest,!a!blade!adjustably!supported!on!
said! one! arm,! for! cooperating! with! said! rest! and! gravity!
means! connected! with! the! other! arm! of! the! lever! and!
actuating!the!latter!to!continuously!urge!the!blade!toward!
the!rest.!
! Essentially,! the! patent! claim! is! over! a! spindle! made! of! wood,!
conical!in!shape!and!with!a!smooth!surface.!
!Defendant!Constancio!BENITO,!on!the!other!hand,!had!a!spindle!
somewhat! similar! in! shape,! but! was! made! of! metal! with! rough!
surface.!BENITO!claims!his!spindle!was!more!effective!and!would!
do!better!work!than!that!of!the!plaintiffs.!
! BENITO! manufactured! a! hempRstripping! machine! in! which,!
without!authority!from!the!plaintiffs,!he!has!embodied!and!used!
such! spindles! and! their! method! of! application! and! use,! and! is!
exhibiting!his!machine!to!the!public!for!the!purpose!of!inducing!
its!purchase.!
!Plaintiff!contend!that!the!BENITOs!machine!is!an!infringement!
upon! the! patent! granted! the! plaintiffs,! and! plaintiffs! pray! for! an!
injunction!that!the!defendant!be!required!to!account!to!plaintiffs!
for!any!profits!he!may!have!made!by!reason!of!such!infringement,!
and! for! a! temporary! injunction! restraining! him! in! the!
manufacture!of!other!machines!of!the!same!kind!of!its!exhibition,!
and! that! upon! the! final! hearing,! the! injunction! be! made!
permanent.!
! BENITO! demurred! to! the! complaint! upon! the! ground! that! the!
facts!alleged!therein!do!not!constitute!a!cause!of!action,!that!it!is!
ambiguous! and! vague,! and! that! it! was! error! to! make! William!
Henry!Gohn!plaintiff!
!Demurrer!was!overruled!and!BENITO!filed!an!answer!stating:!
o! He! never! had! knowledge! of! any! supposed! invention! of!
the!plaintiffs!of!whatever!kind!of!
hempRstripping!machine!
o!He!never!intended!to!imitate!the!unknown!invention!of!
the!plaintiffs!

o! That! the! hempRstripping! machine! of! the! plaintiffs,!


known!as!"La!Constancia,"!patent!of!
which! is! duly! registered,! has! its! characteristics! and!
original! invention! belonging! to! the! defendant! which!
consist!of!two!pinions!with!horizontal!grooves!which!form!
the!tool!for!extracting!the!fibers!between!a!straight!knife!
upon!another!which!is!cylindrical!and!provided!with!teeth!
and! on! the! center! of! said! two! pinions! there! is! a! flying!
wheel!its!transmission!belt!connecting!it!with!the!motor.!
!The!lower!court!rendered!judgment!in!legal!effect!granting!the!
plaintiffs! the! injunction! prayed! for! in! their! complaint,! and!
absolving! them! from! defendant's! counterclaim,! and! judgment!
against!the!defendant!for!costs.!
! BENITO! appeals! and! contends! that! the! court! erred! in! holding!
the! same! spindles! used! by! the! parties! in! this! case,! though!
different! in! material! and! form,! have! the! same! utility! and!
efficiency!and!that!they!are!the!same,!and!in!finding!that!spindles!
used!by!the!defendant!are!an!imitation!of!those!of!the!plaintiffs,!
and! in! finding! that! the! defendant! infringed! upon! plaintiffs'!
patent,! and! in! not! rendering! judgment! against! the! plaintiffs,!
requiring! them! to! pay! defendant! P5,000! as! damages,! and! in!
enjoining!the!appellant!from!the!manufacture,!use!and!sale!of!this!
hempRstripping!machine.!
!
ISSUE:!W/N!the!Plaintiffs!patent!was!infringed!YES!
!
HELD:!The!judgment!of!the!lower!court!is!affirmed,!with!costs.!So!
ordered.!!
!
RA!TIO:!
Rule!of!Evidence:!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! the! shifts! to! the!

defendant! to! overcome! by! competent! evidence! this! legal!


presumption.!
!
Be! that! as! it! may,! the! plaintiffs! have! a! patent! for! their! machine,!
and!the!defendant!does!not!have!a!patent,!and!the!basic!principle!
of!plaintiffs'!patent!is!the!spindle!upon!which!they!rely,!together!
with!its!specified!manner!and!mode!of!operation,!and!in!the!final!
analysis,! it! must! be! conceded! that! the! basic! principle! of! the!
spindle! upon! which! the! defendant! relies! is! founded! upon! the!
basic! principle! of! the! spindle! for! which! the! plaintiffs! have! a!
patent.!
!
Assuming,! without! deciding,! that! the! defendant's! spindle! is! an!
improvement! upon! and! is! a! better! spindle! than! that! of! the!
plaintiffs,!yet,!under!the!authority!above!cited,!the!defendant!had!
no! legal! right! to! appropriate! the! basic! principle! upon! which! the!
plaintiffs! obtained! their! patent.! The! plaintiffs! having! obtained!
their!patent,!which!was!duly!registered!in!the!Philippines!Islands,!
the!defendant!cannot!infringe!upon!its!basic!principle.!
!
The! defendant! contends! that! the! basic! principle! of! the! spindle!
was!a!very!old!one!in!mechanics,!and!that!there!was!nothing!new!
or!novel!in!the!application!of!it!by!the!plaintiffs.!Be!that!as!it!may,!
the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! with! its!
specifications!which!are!attached!to,!and!made!part!of,!the!patent,!
and!the!proof!is!conclusive!that!the!defendant!is!infringing!upon!
the!basic!principle!of!the!spindle!as!it!is!defined!and!specified!in!
plaintiffs'!patent.!
!
Frank#v#Kosuyama!
!
Facts:!
The! case! involves! a! patent! on! improvement! in! hemp! stripping!
machines,! issued! by! the! US! PATENT! OFFICE,! but! registered! in!
the!BUREAU!OF!COMMERCE!AND!INDUSTRY!of!the!Philippines.!
!

Frank! and! Gohn! filed! a! case! against! Kosuyama.! They! asked! for!
the!following:!
1.!that!Kosuyama!be!ordered!to!refrain!from!manufacturing!and!
selling!machines!similar!to!their!patent!
2.!render!an!accounting!for!all!the!profits!from!his!machine!sales,!
or,! in! the! alternative,! to! pay! P60! as! profit! on! each! machine! sold!
by!him!
3.!that!he!pay!costs!and!damages!against!Frank!and!Gohn.!
!
In! spite! of! the! fact! that! they! filed! an! amended! complaint! from!
which! the! spindle! or! conical! drum,! which! was! the! only!
characteristic! feature! of! the! machine! mentioned! in! the! original!
complaint,! was! eliminated,! the! plaintiffs! insisted! that! the! said!
part!constitutes!the!essential!difference!between!the!machine!in!
question! and! other! machines! and! that! it! was! the! principal!
consideration!upon!which!their!patent!was!issued.!
!
The!TRIAL!COURT!analyzed!each!of!the!parts!of!the!machines!and!
came! up! with! the! conclusion! that! Frank! and! Gohn! merely! made!
minor!improvements!on!machines!already!in!use!at!the!time:!
!It!cannot!be!said!that!they!have!invented!the!spindle!inasmuch!
as!this!was!already!known!since!the!year!1909!or!1910.!
! Neither! can! it! be! said! that! they! have! invented! the! stripping!
knife! and! the! contrivance! which! controls! the! movement! and!
pressure! thereof! on! the! ground! that! stripping! knives! together!
with!their!control!sets!were!already!in!actual!use!in!the!different!
stripping!machines!long!before!their!machine!appeared.!
! Neither! can! it! be! said! that! they! invented! the! flywheel! because!
that! part! or! piece! thereof,! so! essential! in! every! machine! from!
time! immemorial,! was! already! known! and! actually! employed! in!
hemp!stripping!machines.!
!Much!less!can!it!be!said!that!they!invented!the!pedal!to!raise!the!
knife!in!order!to!allow!the!hemp!to!be!stripped!to!pass!under!it,!
on!the!ground!that!the!use!of!such!contrivance!has,!likewise,!been!
known! since! the! invention! of! the! most! primitive! of! hemp!
stripping!machines!
!

Issue:!
1.!Did!Kosuyama!infringe!on!the!patent?!
!
Held/Ratio:!
1.!The!SC!agrees!with!the!trial!court,!that,!strictly!speaking,!the!
hemp! stripping! machine! of! the! plaintiffs! does! not! constitute! an!
invention! on! the! ground! that! it! lacks! the! elements! of! novelty,!
originality! and! precedence.! Thus,! Kosuyama! cannot! be! held!
civilly!liable!for!alleged!infringement!of!the!patent!as!there!is!no!
essential! part! of! the! machine! manufactured! and! sold! by! him,!
which!was!unknown!to!the!public!in!the!Province!of!Davao!at!the!
time! the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! for!
improved!hemp!stripping!machines.!
!
OTHER!NOTES!
Frank! and! Gohn! relied! on! an! earlier! case! involving! their! same!
patent,! but! against! another! defendant,! in! which! the! SC! ruled! in!
their! favor.! The! SC! said! that! the! former! case! was! not! applicable!
because! Kosuyama,! in! this! latter! case,! alleged! different! special!
defenses.!Moreover,!in!the!earlier!case,!the!decision!relied!on!the!
presence! of! the! spindle! element! of! the! machine! which! was!
copied! by! the! earlier! defendant.! However,! in! this! case,! it! was!
discovered! that! the! spindle! is! not! even! an! integral! part! of! the!
machine,! and! that! it! was! even! eliminated! from! the! patent!
application,!as!shown!by!evidence!presented!during!the!trial.!
!
!
G.#Sell#vs.#Yap#Jue,#12#Phil.#519!
!
Facts:!
The!plaintiff,!Henry!Gsell,!was!able!to!establish!his!title!to!a!valid!
patent! covering! the! manufacture! of! curved! handles! for! canes,!
parasols,! and! umbrellas.! Thus,! the! court! granted! a! perpetual!
injunction! restraining! defendant! from! manufacturing! canes! and!
umbrellas!with!a!curved!handle!by!means!of!a!lamp!or!blowpipe!
fed!with!mineral!oil!or!petroleum,!since!that!process!was!already!
covered!by!the!patent.!

!
The!patent!of!Gsell!is!for!the!industrial!product!"cane!handles!for!
walking!sticks!and!umbrellas,!curved!by!means!of!a!small!lamp!or!
blowpipe,!fed!by!petroleum!or!mineral!fuel."!
!
Process:!
After! the! canes! have! been! cut! for! cane! or! umbrella! handles,! the!
outsides! are! thoroughly! cleaned.! This! operation! having! been!
performed,! they! are! then! trimmed! and! the! interior! cleaned! by!
means!of!a!gimlet!of!about!15!centimeters!in!length!operated!by!a!
wheel,! by! means! of! which! the! knots! inside! are! broken.! There! is!
then! introduced! to! a! depth! of! about! 15! centimeters! a! piece! of!
very! clean! bamboo,! which! completely! fills! the! hole! made! by! the!
gimlet,!thereby!giving!to!the!cane!the!necessary!strength!to!resist!
the!heat!of!the!lamp!or!blowpipe!without!breaking!or!cracking.!
!
Despite! the! court! order,! defendant! still! proceeded! to!
manufacture! curved! cane! handled! for! walking! sticks! and!
umbrellas! by! a! process! identical! to! that! covered! by! the! patent,!
except! that! he! substituted! for! a! lamp! fed! with! petroleum! or!
mineral! oil,! lamp! fed! with! alcohol.! So! Gsell! instituted! contempt!
proceedings! against! defendant! for! disobeying! the! order! of! the!
court.! The! trial! court! ruled! that! the! act! was! not! contrary! to! the!
precise! terms! of! the! prohibition! since! the! defendant! used! an!
alcoholRburning! lamp! instead! of! a! coal! or! mineral! oilRburning!
lamp.!It!was!held!that!defendant!was!not!guilty!of!contempt!since!
Gsell!failed!to!prove!the!facts.!
But! the! defendant! still! continued! to! use! the! patented! process!
with!the!substitution!of!the!mineralRoil!burning!lamp!for!a!lamp!
fed!by!alcohol.!
!
Issue:!
1.! W/N! there! was! infringement! of! Gsells! patent! when! the!
defendant!substituted!alcohol!for!petroleum!or!mineral!oil!
!
Held/Ratio:!

1.! YES.! Gsell! has! established! the! existence! of! two! facts:! (1)! That!
the! use! of! the! lamp! fed! with! petroleum! or! mineral! oil! was! an!
unessential!part!of!the!patented!process!the!use!of!which!by!the!
defendant! was! prohibited! by! the! said! judgment;! and! (2)! that!
alcohol! is! an! equivalent! and! proper! substitute,! well! known! as!
such,! for! mineral! oil! or! petroleum! in! connection! with! the! said!
process.!
!
It!was!clearly!proven!at!the!trial,!that!kerosene!and!alcohol!blast!
lamps!are!agencies!for!producing!and!applying!heat,!well!known!
throughout!the!world!long!prior!to!1906,!the!date!of!the!issue!of!
the!patent;!that!it!is!and!for!many!years!has!been!known!that!one!
may!for!all!ordinary!purposes!be!used!in!the!place!of!the!other.!
!
It! is! true! that! defendant's! blast! lamp! is! fed! with! alcohol,! and! its!
shape! varies! in! unimportant! details,! for! the! purpose! of!
accommodating! the! principle,! by! which! the! flame! is! secured,! to!
the!different!physical!and!chemical!composition!of!the!fuel!used!
therein;! but! the! principle! on! which! it! works,! its! mode! of!
application,! and! its! general! design! distinguish! it! in! no! essential!
particular!from!that!used!by!the!plaintiff.!
!
The! doctrine! of! mechanical! equivalents! was! also! invoked! by!
Gsell! and! the! Court! ruled! that! it! is! applicable! in! this! case.! The!
doctrine! may! properly! be! invoked! to! protect! the! patentee! from!
colorable! invasions! of! his! patent! under! the! guise! of! substitution!
of! some! part! of! his! invention! by! some! well! known! mechanical!
equivalent.!
As! quoted! by! the! Court! from! a! U.S.! case:! the! inventor! of! an!
ordinary! machine! is,! by! his! letters! patent,! protected! against! all!
mere! formal! alterations! and! against! the! substitution! of! mere!
mechanical! equivalents.! Why! should! not! the! inventor! of! a! new!
combination!receive!the!same!protection?!If!he!can!not,!then!will!
his!patent!not!be!worth!the!parchment!on!which!it!is!written.!
!
No!one!infringes!a!patent!for!a!combination!who!does!not!employ!
all!of!the!ingredients!of!the!combination;!but!if!he!employs!all!the!

ingredients,!or!adopts!mere!formal!alterations,!or!substitutes,!for!
one!ingredient!another!which!was!well!known!at!the!date!of!the!
patent! as! a! proper! substitute! for! the! one! withdrawn,! and! which!
performs!substantially!the!same!function!as!the!one!withdrawn,!
he!does!infringe.!
!
An!alteration!in!a!patented!combination!which!merely!substitutes!
another!old!ingredient!for!one!of!the!ingredients!in!the!patented!
combination,! is! an! infringement! of! the! patent,! if! the! substitute!
performs! the! same! function! and! was! well! known! at! the! date! of!
the!patent!as!a!proper!substitute!for!the!omitted!ingredient.!
!
Maguan#v#CA!
!
Doctrine:!
! SEC.! 9.! Invention! not! considered! new! or! patentable.! ! An!
invention! shall! not! be! considered! new! or! capable! of! being!
patented:!
!
a.!If!it!was!known!or!used!by!others!in!the!Philippines!before!the!
invention! thereof! by! the! inventor! named! in! an! application! for!
patent!for!the!invention;!or!
!
b.!If!it!was!patented!or!described!in!any!printed!publication!in!the!
Philippines!or!any!foreign!country!more!than!one!year!before!the!
application!for!a!patent!therefor;!or!
!
c.! If! it! had! been! in! public! use! or! on! sale! in! the! Philippines! for!
more!than!one!year!before!the!application!for!a!patent!therefor;!
or!
!
d.! If! it! is! the! subject! matter! of! a! validly! issued! patent! in! the!
Philippines!granted!on!an!application!filed!before!the!filing!of!the!
application!for!patent!therefor.!
!
Facts:!

Petitioner! Rosario! Maguan! is! doing! business! under! Swan!


Manufacturing! and! is! a! patent! holder! of! powder! puff.3! In! a!
letter,!petitioner!informed!private!respondent!Luchan!(of!Susana!
Luchan!Powder!Puff!Manufacturing)!that!the!powder!puff!it!was!
manufacturing! and! selling,! particularly! those! to! the! cosmetics!
industry,!resemble!were!identical!or!substantially!identical!to!the!
powder! puff! petitioner! had! patented! therefore! the! production!
and!sale!of!the!same!by!the!latter!constituted!infringement.!In!her!
defense,! respondent! stated! the! following:! First,! that! her! powder!
puff!was!different;!second,!that!the!petitioners!patents!were!void!
because! the! utility! models! applied! for! were! not! new! and!
patentable,! and! lastly,! that! the! person! to! whom! the! patent! was!
issued! was! not! the! true! and! actual! owner! nor! were! her! rights!
derived! from! that! author.! Specifically,! respondent! further!
alleged:!
!
a.!Years!prior!to!the!application!for!the!patents,!powder!puffs!of!
that!kind!already!existed!and!publicly!sold!in!the!market!both!in!
the!Philippines!and!abroad!
!
b.! Applicants! claim! for! the! construction! or! process! of!
manufacturing! the! utility! models! were! but! a! complicated! and!
impractical! version! of! an! old! simple! one! which! has! been! well!
known! in! the! cosmetics! industry! (as! early! as! 1963)! thereby!
belonging!to!no!one!except!the!general!public.!
!
Hence,! petitioner! filed! a! complaint! for! damages! with! injunction!
and! preliminary! injunction.! The! trial! court! granted! the! writs!
prayed! for.! Upon! petition! for! certiorari,! the! CA! issued! a! writ! of!
preliminary!injunction!enjoining!the!orders!of!the!trial!court!but!
subsequently!dismissed!the!case!for!lack!of!merit!(issue!decided!
was!only!whether!the!court!acted!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion,!
not! on! whether! the! patents! had! been! infringed).! However! upon!
reconsideration,!injunction!was!granted.!
!
Issues:!

1.!W/N!in!an!action!for!infringement!the!court!had!jurisdiction!to!
determine! the! invalidity! of! the! patents! at! issue! which! invalidity!
was!still!pending!in!consideration!in!the!Patent!Office!
2.! W/N! the! court! committed! grave! abuse! of! discretion! in! the!
issuance!of!the!writ!of!preliminary!injunction!
3.!W/N!certiorari!was!the!proper!remedy!
!
Held/Ratio:!
1.!YES.!When!a!patent!is!sought!to!be!enforced,!the!questions!of!
invention,!novelty!or!prior!use,!are!open!to!judicial!examination.!
Under! the! Patent! Law,! the! trial! court! has! jurisdiction! to! declare!
patents! in! question! invalid.! A! patentee! shall! have! the! exclusive!
right!to!make,!use!and!sell!the!patented!article!or!product!and!the!
making,!using,!or!selling!by!any!person!without!the!authorization!
of! the! patentee! constitutes! infringement! of! the! patent! (Sec.! 37,!
R.A.! 165).! Any! patentee! whose! rights! have! been! infringed! upon!
may! bring! an! action! before! the! proper! CFI! now! (RTC)! and! to!
secure!an!injunction!for!the!protection!of!his!rights!(Sec.!42,!R.A.!
165).! Under! Sec.! 46! of! the! same! law,! if! the! Court! shall! find! the!
patent! or! any! claim! thereof! invalid,! the! Director! shall! on!
certification!of!the!final!judgment!...!issue!an!order!cancelling!the!
patent! or! the! claims! found! invalid! and! shall! publish! a! notice!
thereof! in! the! Official! Gazette.! Upon! such! certification,! it! is!
ministerial! on! the! part! of! the! patent! office! to! execute! the!
judgment!
!
2.!YES.!The!validity!of!petitioners!patents!is!in!question!for!want!
of!novelty.!Trial!court!committed!grave!abuse!of!discretion!when!
it! failed! to! determine! the! validity! of! the! patents! before! issuance!
of! the! writ.! For! an! injunction! to! issue,! 2! requisites! must! be!
satisfied:! First,! the! existence! of! the! right! to! be! protected! and!
second,!the!violation!of!said!right.!
!
The! burden! of! proof! to! substantiate! a! charge! of! infringement! is!
with!the!plaintiff.!But!where!the!plaintiff!introduces!the!patent!in!
evidence,! and! the! same! is! in! due! form,! there! is! created! a! prima!
facie!presumption!of!its!correctness!and!validity.!The!decision!of!

the! Director! of! Patent! in! granting! the! patent! is! presumed! to! be!
correct.!The!burden!of!going!forward!with!the!evidence!(burden!
of! evidence)! then! shifts! to! the! defendant! to! overcome! by!
competent!evidence!this!legal!presumption!
!
After! review! of! 64! exhibits! and! oral! testimonies! of! 5! witnesses,!
there! is! a! prima! facie! showing! of! a! fair! question! of! invalidity! of!
petitioners! patents! on! the! ground! of! lack! of! novelty.! The!
evidence!appeared!not!to!have!been!considered!at!all!by!the!court!
a!quo!for!alleged!lack!of!jurisdiction,!on!the!mistaken!notion!that!
such! question! in! within! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of! the! patent!
office.! An! invention! must! possess! the! essential! elements! of!
novelty,! originality! and! precedence! and! for! the! patentee! to! be!
entitled! to! protection;! the! invention! must! be! new! to! the! 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.!
!
Under!American!Law!from!which!our!Patent!Law!was!derived!it!
is!generally!held!that!in!patent!cases!a!preliminary!injunction!will!
not!issue!for!patent!infringement!unless!the!validity!of!the!patent!
is! clear! and! beyond! question.! The! issuance! of! letters! patent,!
standing!alone,!is!not!sufficient!to!support!such!drastic!relief.!In!
cases!of!infringement!of!patent!no!preliminary!injunction!will!be!
granted!unless!the!patent!is!valid!and!infringed!beyond!question!
and!the!record!conclusively!proves!the!defense!is!sham.!
!
3.!YES.!For!an!injunction!to!issue,!2!requisites!must!be!satisfied:!
First,! the! existence! of! the! right! to! be! protected,! and! second,! the!
violation! of! said! right.! In! this! case,! the! injunctive! order! is! so!
general!that!the!petitioner!may!be!totally!barred!from!the!sale!of!
any! kind! of! powder! puff.! Under! the! circumstances,! ordinary!
appeal!is!inadequate.!In!the!past,!the!Court!has!recognized!that!a!
petition! for! certiorari! may! be! applied! for! by! the! proper! petition!
notwithstanding!the!existence!of!the!regular!remedy!of!an!appeal!

when! among! other! reasons,! the! broader! interests! of! justice! so!
require!or!an!ordinary!appeal!is!not!an!adequate!remedy.!
!
Godines#vs.#CA,##226#SCRA#338!
!
Doctrine:!
!according!to!the!doctrine!of!equivalents,!(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.!
!
Facts:!
!
Villaruz!had!a!patent.!It!covers!a!utility!model!for!a!hand!tractor!
or!power!tiller.!!
!
The!above!mentioned!patent!was!acquired!by!SVRAgro!Industries!
Enterprises,! Inc.,! herein! private! respondent.! On! October! 31,!
1979,!SVRAgro!Industries!caused!the!publication!of!the!patent!in!a!
newspaper!of!general!circulation.!
!
In! accordance! with! the! patent,! SVRArgo! manufactured! and! sold!
the!patented!power!tillers.!In!1979,!SVRAgro!Industries!suffered!a!
decline!of!more!than!50%!in!sales!in!its!Molave,!Zamboanga!del!
Sur! branch.! Upon! investigation,! it! discovered! that! power! tillers!
similar! to! those! patented! were! being! manufactured! and! sold! by!
Godines! (petitioner).! Consequently,! SVRArgo! notified! Godines!
about! the! existing! patent! and! demanded! that! the! latter! stop!
selling!and!manufacturing!similar!power!tillers.!Upon!petitioner's!
failure! to! comply! with! the! demand,! SVRAgro! Industries! filed!
before!the!RTC!a!complaint!for!infringement!of!patent!and!unfair!
competition.!
!
Godines!defense!was!that!the!hand!tractors!that!he!made!by!him!
were!different.!

!
SVR!Argo!won!in!the!RTC!and!CA!!
!
Issue:!
1.!W/N!there!was!infringement?!!
!
Held/Ratio:!
1.! Yes,! Tests! have! been! established! to! determine! infringement.!
These! are! (a)! literal! infringement;! and! (b)! the! doctrine! of!
equivalents.! 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."!
!
Samples!of!the!Godines!floating!power!tiller!have!been!produced!
and! inspected! by! the! trial! court! and! compared! with! that! of! the!
turtle!power!tiller!of!SVRArgo.!In!appearance!and!form,!both!the!
floating!power!tillers!of!the!defendant!and!the!turtle!power!tiller!
of!the!plaintiff!are!virtually!the!same.11!
!
Also! according! to! the! doctrine! of! equivalents,! (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!reason!for!the!doctrine!of!equivalents!is!that!
to! permit! the! imitation! of! a! patented! invention! which! does! not!
copy!any!literal!detail!would!be!to!convert!the!protection!of!the!
patent!grant!into!a!hollow!and!useless!thing.!
In!this!case,!the!trial!court!observed!that,!between!the!two!power!
tillers! operate! on! the! same! fundamental! principles.! And! it! is!
sufficient!to!constitute!equivalency!that!the!same!function!can!be!
performed! in! substantially! the! same! way! or! manner,! or! by! the!
same! or! substantially! the! same,! principle! or! mode! of! operation;!
but! where! these! tests! are! satisfied,! mere! differences! of! form! or!
name!are!immaterial.!
!

Also!to!establish!an!infringement,!it!is!not!essential!to!show!that!
the!defendant!adopted!the!device!or!process!in!every!particular;!
Proof! of! an! adoption! of! the! substance! of! the! thing! will! be!
sufficient.!"In!one!sense,"!said!Justice!Brown,!"it!may!be!said!that!
no! device! can! be! adjudged! an! infringement! that! does! not!
substantially! correspond! with! the! patent.! But! another!
construction,!which!would!limit!these!words!to!exact!mechanism!
described! in! the! patent,! would! be! so! obviously! unjust! that! no!
court!could!be!expected!to!adopt!it.!
!
EXTRA! INFO:! The! court! refused! Godines! defense! that! he! only!
made! hand! tractors! based! on! the! specifications! of! the! customer!
(ala! contractor),! because! as! observed! by! the! RTC! Godines! own!
answer!admitted!manufacturing!the!hand!tractors,!plus!it!highly!
unlikely!that!Godines!built!hand!tractors!based!on!the!customers!
verbal! instruction! only,! without! written! instructions.! Also! SVR
Argos!hand!tractor!were!called!turtle!power!tiller!while!Godines!
was!floating!power!tiller.!Also!the!case!is!really!short.!
!
Del#Rosario#vs.#CA,#255#SCRA#152!
!
Doctrines:!
!Any!new!model!of!implements!or!tools!of!any!industrial!product!
even! if! not! possessed! of! the! quality! of! invention! but! which! is! of!
practical!utility!is!entitled!to!a!patent!for!utility!model.!
!Where!a!party!introduces!the!patent!in!evidence,!if!it!is!in!due!
form,!it!affords!a!prima!facie!presumption!of!its!correctness!and!
validitythe! decision! of! the! Director! of! Patents! in! granting! the!
patent! is! always! presumed! to! be! correct,! and! the! burden! then!
shifts! to! the! other! party! to! overcome! this! presumption! by!
competent!evidence.!
! 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.!

!A!patentee!shall!have!the!exclusive!right!to!make,!use!and!sell!
the! patented! machine,! article! or! product! 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! authorization! of! the! patentee! constitutes!
infringement!of!his!patent.!
!In!order!to!infringe!a!patent,!a!machine!or!device!must!perform!
the!same!function,!or!accomplish!the!same!result!by!identical!or!
substantially! identical! means! and! the! principle! or! mode! of!
operation!must!be!substantially!the!same.!
!
Facts:!
On! 18! January! 1993,! Roberto! del! Rosario! (Petitioner),! holder! of!
two! Letters! Patent! dated! 1983! and! 1986! for! audio! equipment!
commonly! known! as! the! singRalong! system! or! karaoke,! filed! a!
complaint! for! patent! infringement! against! Janito! Corporation!
(Respondent).!Respondent!allegedly!manufactured!and!sold!singR
along! systems! bearing! the! trademark! miyata! or! miyata!
karaoke! substantially! similar! if! not! identical! to! the! singRalong!
system!covered!by!the!patents.!
!
Petitioner!sought!the!issuance!of!a!writ!of!preliminary!injunction,!
which! the! trial! court! granted.! However,! the! Court! of! Appeals!
reversed,! saying! there! was! no! infringement! of! the! patents,!
reasoning! that! the! karaoke! system! was! a! universal! product!
manufactured,!advertised,!and!marketed!in!most!countries!of!the!
world! long! before! the! Petitioners! patents! were! issued.! Hence,!
Petitioner!went!to!the!SC.!
!
Issue:!
1.!Is!the!petitioner!entitled!to!the!writ!of!preliminary!injunction?!
!
Held/Ratio:!
1.! YES.! There! are! only! two! requisites! to! be! satisfied! for! an!
injunction! to! issue,! namely,! the! existence! of! a! right! to! be!
protected,!and!that!the!facts!against!which!the!injunction!is!to!be!
directed!are!violative!of!said!right.!

!
In!this!case,!Petitioner!is!shown!to!be!a!holder!of!Letters!Patents!
for! utility! models.! In! the! issuance! of! patents,! the! Director! of!
Patents! determines! whether! the! patent! is! new! and! whether! the!
machine! or! device! is! the! proper! subject! of! patent.! In! passing! on!
an!application,!the!Director!decides!not!only!questions!of!law!but!
also! questions! of! fact,! i.e.! whether! there! has! been! a! prior! public!
use!or!sale!of!the!article!sought!to!be!patented.!Where!the!Letters!
Patent!are!introduced!in!evidence!and!are!in!due!form,!it!affords!
a! prima! facie! presumption! of! its! correctness! and! validity.! The!
decision! of! the! Director! is! presumed! correct,! and! the! burden!
shifts!to!the!respondent!to!overcome!such!presumption.!
!
Under! the! [then]! Patent! Law,! 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.!
Respondent! failed! to! present! evidence! to! show! that! the! utility!
models! covered! by! Petitioners! patents! were! not! new.! The!
witness!stated!in!court!that!there!were!a!lot!of!singRalong!systems!
sold! prior! to! the! patents,! but! his! testimony! was! destroyed! on!
cross! examination! upon! showing! that! the! alleged! dates! when!
they! were! supposedly! sold! publicly! were! all! inaccurate! or!
fabricated,!and!no!other!evidence!was!presented!to!back!up!such!
claims.!
!
The! rights! of! the! Petitioner! have! been! sufficiently! established.!
Petitioner!as!patentee!shall!have!the!exclusive!right!to!make,!use,!
and!sell!the!patented!machine,!article,!or!product!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! authorization! of! the! patentee!
constitutes! patent! infringement.! Petitioner! likewise! established!
that!Respondent!was!manufacturing!a!similar!singRalong!system!
which!infringed!Petitioners!patented!models.!

!
While! Respondent! tried! to! show! the! differences! between! its!
miyata!equipment!and!petitioners!products,!Respondent!merely!
focused! on! the! differences! with! the! first! patent,! ignoring! the!
second,!which!was!an!improvement!of!the!first.!It!was!shown!that!
Respondents! equipment! involved! substantially! the! same! modes!
or! operation! and! produce! substantially! the! same! if! not! identical!
results! when! used.! Respondent! likewise! did! not! present! a!
comparison!of!his!own!and!Petitioners!equipment!to!refute!such!
finding.!
!
Thus,!the!issuance!of!a!writ!of!preliminary!injunction!is!justified.!