You are on page 1of 3


, petitioner,
- Aerial Fuze case
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."
Under American jurisprudence, an inventor has no common-law right to a monopoly of his invention. He
has the right to make, use and vend his own invention, but if he voluntarily discloses it, such as by
offering it for sale, the world is free to copy and use it with impunity. A patent, however, gives the
inventor the right to exclude all others. As a patentee, he has the exclusive right of making, using or
selling the invention.
Petitioner's remedy is not to file an action for injunction or infringement but to file a petition for
cancellation of private respondent's patent
When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may not claim
anything beyond them.
And so are the courts bound which may not add to or detract from the claims
matters not expressed or necessarily implied, nor may they enlarge the patent beyond the scope of that
which the inventor claimed and the patent office allowed, even if the patentee may have been entitled
to something more than the words it had chosen would include.

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.
Yet again, a scrutiny of petitioners evidence fails to convince
this Court of the substantial sameness of petitioners patented compound and Albendazole. While
both compounds have the effect of neutralizing parasites in animals, identity of result does not
amount to infringement of patent unless Albendazole operates in substantially the same way or by
substantially the same means as the patented compound, even though it performs the same function
and achieves the same result.
In other words, the principle or mode of operation must be the
same or substantially the same.

The doctrine of equivalents thus 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.

As for the concept of divisional applications proffered by petitioner, it comes into play when two or
more inventions are claimed in a single application but are of such a nature that a single patent may
not be issued for them.
The applicant thus is required "to divide," that is, to limit the claims to
whichever invention he may elect, whereas those inventions not elected may be made the subject of
separate applications which are called "divisional applications
While laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, respondent's claim
is not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or
composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity "having a distinctive name, character [and] use
4. JUICY WHIP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORANGE BANG, INC., Unique Beverage
Dispensers, Inc., David Fox, and Bruce Burwick, Defendants-Appellees.
a. delay between event and trial, (2) interest of witness, (3) contradiction or impeachment,
(4) corroboration, (5) witnesses' familiarity with details of alleged prior structure, (6)
improbability of prior use considering state of the art, (7) impact of the invention on the
industry, and (8) relationship between witness and alleged prior user.
b. Reliable evidence of corroboration preferably comes in the form of physical records that
were made contemporaneously with the alleged prior invention
c. Inequitable conduct entails a two-step analysis: first, a determination of whether the
withheld reference meets a threshold level of materiality and intent to mislead, and
second, a weighing of the materiality and intent in light of all of the circumstances to
determine whether the applicant's conduct is so culpable that the patent should be

5. Manzano vs. CA & Madolaria, G.R. No. G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997

Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. - (a) Any new, original and ornamental
design for an article of manufacture and (b) any new model of implements or tools or of any
industrial product or of part of the same, which does not possess the quality of invention, but
which is of practical utility by reason of its form, configuration, construction or composition,
may be protected by the author thereof, the former by a patent for a design and the latter by a
patent for a utility model, in the same manner and subject to the same provisions and
requirements as relate to patents for inventions insofar as they are applicable except as
otherwise herein provided.
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 not overcome by evidence

6. Roma vs Glaxo Smith Klein

Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the
Philippines by the owner of the product, or with his express consent, insofar as
such use is performed after that product has been so put on the said market:
Provided, That, with regard to drugs and medicines, the limitation on patent rights
shall apply after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or
anywhere else in the world by the patent owner, or by any party authorized to use
the invention: Provided, further, That the right to import the drugs and medicines
contemplated in this section shall be available to any government agency or any
private third party. (72.1)

The drugs and medicines are deemed introduced when they have been sold
or offered for sale anywhere else in the world. (n)
Where a statute of later date, such as Rep. Act No. 9502, clearly reveals an intention on
the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject that intention must be given
effect.1 When a subsequent enactment covering a field of operation coterminus with a prior
statute cannot by any reasonable construction be given effect while the prior law remains in
operative existence because of irreconcilable conflict between the two acts, the latest legislative
expression prevails and the prior law yields to the extent of the conflict.2 Irreconcilable
inconsistency between two laws embracing the same subject may exist when the later law
nullifies the reason or purpose of the earlier act, so that the latter loses all meaning and
function.3 Legis posteriors priores contrarias abrogant.