Industrial Applicability: Juicy whip Facts


Juicy Whip, Inc., holder of U.S. Patent No. 5,575,405 (the '405 patent) to a "post-mix" beverage dispenser, brought suit against Orange Bang, Inc. (Bang) and Unique Beverage Dispensers, Inc. (Unique) alleging infringement of the claims of the '405 patent. Bang and Unique moved for summary judgment on the grounds of invalidity. The district court held Juicy Whip's patent invalid for lack of utility because the patent sought to increase sales through deceptive imitation of another product. A "pre-mix" dispenser mixes the syrup concentrate and water and stores the prepared beverage in a reservoir bowl until the beverage is dispensed for a consumer. In contrast, a "post-mix" dispenser stores the components in separate locations until the beverage is ready to be dispensed. The invention of the '405 patent contains a transparent display bowl that is filled with a fluid that simulates the dispensed beverage, yet is resistant to bacterial growth and does not need daily maintenance. In this way, the dispenser creates the visual impression that beverages are dispensed from the bowl, yet the beverage is not mixed until immediately before dispensing. The district court concluded that the invention lacked utility and was thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. � 101. Juicy Whip argued that the invention successfully entices consumers to purchase a beverage and eliminates the need for retailers to clean display bowls; thus, the invention is useful. The court acknowledged this argument, yet held the invention did not improve upon the prior art because its only use was to increase the salability of beverages through deception. Thus, the court concluded the invention was merely an imitation lacking utility, and therefore unpatentable. Juicy Whip appealed this decision.

whether a product that improves the prior art by making a product more salable through deception or imitation has sufficient utility to be patentable Yes. A product that increases salability by imitating another satisfies the statutory requirement for utility. The fact that customers are deceived by the operation of an invention does not preclude its utility.

Conditions of patentability: Patentable subject matter : Disclosure Requirement:

which was also August 5. 6. Paper No. 165) to petitioners. claim to be the inventors of a new antibiotic designated as "tetracycline". petitioners were advised that the "Specification" they had submitted was "incomplete" and that responsive action should be filed them four months from date of mailing. Description. 1959. Disclosure. 1959. patent for their own invention. . 2 On August 5. The said above application therefore is good and valid.The Regulations shall prescribe the contents of the description and the order of presentation. denying priority rights under section 15 of our Patent Law (Republic Act No. We request. petitioners informed respondent Director that in interference proceedings in the United States.2. 1958. BURDEN OF PROOF . observed and requested: In the Philippines. chemists.. the situation is at least the reverse. Letters Patent for a similar invention as theirs was awarded to Pfizer and Co. Boothe v Director Sought to be reviewed herein is the Decision of the Director of Patents. as foreign applicants for Letters Patent.S. which had filed its application ahead and that they failed to obtain any U. however. 6 precipitated a series of communications between the aforementioned Patent Examiner and petitioners. apparently referring to a local Patent obtained by Pfizer and Co. Pfizer and Co. for their invention of "Chemotherapeutic Materials and Methods of Preparing the same. 1964. therefore. presumably covering the same invention. Lydia Nueva España. did not file or else filed an application after the above application has already been filed.. 1956".1. 254 — November 29. that the present application be granted on the basis of the claims originally filed. however. Petitioners James Howard Boothe and John Morton II.Sec. 3 Patent Examiner. Where the application concerns a microbiological process or the product thereof and involves the use of a micro-organism which cannot be sufficiently disclosed in the application in such a way as to enable the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. 35. Additionally. 35. Disclosure and Description of the Invention. in Paper No. 35.The application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. the application shall be supplemented by a deposit of such material with an international depository institution. . a new derivative of chlortetracycline (popularly known as "aureomycin") On February 7. citizens and residents of the United States. dated December 9. Petitioners. who apparently failed to meet the deadline of four months for filing their responsive action. and such material is not available to the public. rejected all of petitioners' claims in view of "Philippine Patent No.

But where the plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence. . petitioner informed private respondent that the powder puffs the latter is manufacturing and selling to various enterprises particularly those in the cosmetics industry. 6-7). The decision of the Commissioner (now Director) of Patent in granting the patent is presumed to be correct. that a writ of preliminary injunction be immediately issued Issue: (1) Whether or not in an action for infringement the Court a quo had jurisdiction to determine the invalidity of the patents at issue which invalidity was still pending consideration in the patent office. 1974 (Annex "D". 1972) 3. Rollo.(Petition." It is undisputed that petitioner is a patent holder of powder puff namely: 1. and prayed. there is created a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. 1974. and the same is in due form. 1974.Rosario v CA Petitioner is doing business under the firm name and style of SWAN MANUFACTURING" while private respondent is likewise doing business under the firm name and style of "SUSANA LUCHAN POWDER PUFF MANUFACTURING. 1971) 2. The question then in the instant case is whether or not the evidence introduced by private respondent herein is sufficient to overcome said presumption. UM-109 for a period of 5 years from October 6. Held: The burden of proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. docketed as Civil Case No. petitioner. UM110 for a period of 5 years from January 26. p. pp. for a period of 5years fromApril 5. UM 1184. 19908. among others. UM-450 (extended and/or renewed under Extension No. Pasig Branch. Rollo. for infringing the aforesaid letters patent. In a letter dated July 10. 86). on August 24. The burden of going forward with the evidence (burden of evidence) then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption. filed a complaint for damages with injunction and preliminary injunction against private respondent with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. UM-423 (extended and/or renewed under Extension No. resemble Identical or substantially Identical powder puffs of which the former is a patent holder Private respondent replied stating that her products are different and countered that petitioner's patents are void because the utility models applied for were not new and patentable and the person to whom the patents were issued was not the true and actual author nor were her rights derived from such author.

on the mistaken notion that such question in within the exclusive jurisdiction of the patent office. 9 of the Patent Law) before the date of his application for his patent. the prohibition is against the manufacture of canes and umbrellas with curved handles by means of the use of a cool or mineral oil-burning lamp or blowpipe and the parties have stipulated that the defendant did not use a coal or mineral oilburning lamp but an alcohol-burning lamp. As pointed out by said appellate court said evidence appeared not to have been considered at all by the court a quo for alleged lack of jurisdiction. and Vargas v. These acts were not clearly and manifestly contrary to the precise terms of the prohibition. F. Issue: whether that prohibition included the substitution of alcohol for coal or mineral oil. was an action to enjoin infringement of a patented process for the manufacture of curved handles for canes. parasols. that kerosene and alcohol blast lamps are agencies for producing and applying heat. 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. well known throughout the world long prior to 1906. Chua. originality and precedence and for the patentee to be entitled to protection. the date of the . and umbrellas.M.After a careful review of the evidence consisting of 64 exhibits and oral testimonies of five witnesses presented by private respondents before the Court of First Instance before the Order of preliminary injunction was issued as well as those presented by the petitioner. Held: It was clearly proven at the trial. Yaptico & Co. respondent Court of Appeals was satisfied that there is a prima facie showing of a fair question of invalidity of petitioner's patents on the ground of lack of novelty. and this court. the invention must be new to the world. In that case plaintiff established his title to a valid patent covering the process in question. et al. on appeal. the validity of the patent when issued. which are alleged to constitute the said violation. et al. Test of Infringement Literal Infringement Doctrine of Equivalents Gsell v VAleriano The principal case to which these proceedings are ancillary. granting a perpetual injunction restraining its infringement.. v. Kosuyama Vargas v. will be fatal to. The trial court found the defendant "not guilty" of contempt as charged. It has been repeatedly held that an invention must possess the essential elements of novelty . (Frank. supra). held that — a character that it could be made patent by the mere annunciation of the acts performed by the defendant. and obtained against this defendant a judgment. which judgment was affirmed by this court on appeal. Accordingly. According to the express language of the judgment.

Zamboanga del Sur branch. the court must juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused product within the overall context of the claims and specifications. the only difference in construction being occasioned by the application of this principle to oils of different physical and chemical composition. and (b) the doctrine of equivalents. from Magdalena Villaruz.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. Villaruz on July 15. Issue: Did petitioner's product infringe upon the patent of private respondent? Held: Tests have been established to determine infringement. . infringement is made out and that is the end of it. SV-Agro Industries caused the publication of the patent in Bulletin Today. herein private respondent. . Upon investigation. that the only consideration which determines the employment of one in place of the other is the convenience of the user and the question of relative cost. Judgement affirmed. If accused matter clearly falls within the claim. and that the principle upon which both lamps work is substantially identical. he patent involved in this case is Letters Patent No. These are (a) literal infringement. a newspaper of general circulation. hence. Inc. by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed by the latter in its favor. It covers a utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller The above mentioned patent was acquired by SV-Agro Industries Enterprises. SV-Agro Industries suffered a decline of more than 50% in sales in its Molave. in the first instance. he could not be liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition. it discovered that power tillers similar to those patented by private respondent were being manufactured and sold by petitioner herein. On October 31. the court held Pascual Godines liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition Defense: 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. the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby ." 8 To determine whether the particular item falls within the literal meaning of the patent claims. and that those made by him were different from those being manufactured and sold by private respondent. its chairman and president. premises considered. UM-2236 issued by the Philippine Patent Office to one Magdalena S. resort must be had. 1976. Pascual Godines vs CA Through this petition for review in certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the trial court. 7 In using literal infringement as a test. 1979. and especially for the purpose of applying heat in the manner described in the patent. ".. to determine whether there is exact identity of all material elements WHEREFORE. petitioner Pascual Godines seeks to reverse the adverse decision of the Court a quo that he was liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition. to the words of the claim.

Protecting Trade Secrets Duncan v Glaxo The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. . In laying down the assailed company policy.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful