Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated Incorporated, and North Edsa Marketing, Incorporated
Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated Incorporated, and North Edsa Marketing, Incorporated
SHOEMART,
INCORPORATED, and NORTH EDSA MARKETING,
INCORPORATED, respondents. (Pearl & Dean (Phil.) v. Shoemart, G.R. No.
|||
SYNOPSIS
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and denied the
petition. According to the Court, petitioner Pearl & Dean secured its copyright
under the classification class "O" work or under Section 2 (O) of P.D. 49. As
such, petitioner's copyright protection extended only to the technical drawings
and not to the light box itself because the latter was not at all in the category of
"prints, pictorial illustrations, advertising copies, labels, tags and box wraps."
While P & D indeed owned a valid copyright, the same could have referred only
to the technical drawings within the category of "pictorial illustrations." It could not
have possibly stretched out to include the underlying light box The strict
application of the law's enumeration in Section 2 of PD 49prevented the Court
from giving petitioner even a little leeway, that is, even if its copyright certificate
was entitled "Advertising Display Units." What the law does not include, it
excludes, and for the good reason: the light box was not a literary or artistic piece
which could be copyrighted under the copyright law. The Court also ruled that
petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from manufacturing or commercially
using its invention for the main reason that it never secured a patent for it. The
Court emphasized that to be able to effectively and legally preclude others from
copying and profiting from an invention, a patent is a primordial requirement. No
patent, no protection. The ultimate goal of a patent system is to bring new
designs and technologies into the public domain through disclosure. Ideas, once
disclosed to the public without the protection of a valid patent, are subject to
appropriation without significant restraint.
SYLLABUS
PHIL 474-497)
SYNOPSIS
Private respondent, who had been granted and issued Letters Patent No. 658 by
the Philippines Patent Office for his invention of certain new and useful
improvements in the process of making mosaic pre-cast tiles, filed a complaint
for infringement of patent against petitioner Domiciano Aguas and F. H. Aquino &
Sons. Petitioner Aguas, in his answer, alleged that respondent's patent was
unlawfully secured through misrepresentations as the latter's invention is neither
inventive nor new and hence not patentable; and that he cannot be held guilty of
infringement because his products, which had been duly patented, were different
from those of the private respondent. The trial court, finding respondent's patent
valid and infringed, ordered petitioner Aguas and F. H. Aquino & Sons to pay
respondent jointly and severally actual, moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals questioning the
validity of the patent issued by the Philippines Patent Office and the patentability
of respondent's tile-making process. The Appellate Court, however, sustained the
trial court's decision but greatly reduced the award of moral damages.
Meanwhile, private respondent's patent right expired, hence, in this petition, only
the right of said private respondent to damages will be determined.
The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the trial court as modified by the
Court of Appeals, held that petitioner's evidence has not overcome the legal
presumption on the validity of respondent's patent; and that based on the
records, respondent's process is an improvement of the old process of tile-
making, hence, patentable.
Petition dismissed.
SYLLABUS
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent Office an action for the
cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 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.
Petitioner 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 for cancellation holding that the evidence of petitioner
was not able to establish convincingly that the patented utility model of private
respondent was anticipated. Not one of the various pictorial representations of
business convincingly showed that the devices presented by petitioner was
identical with the utility model of the respondent. Even assuming that the
brochures depicted each element of the patented gas burner device so that the
prior art and patented device became identical although in truth they were not,
they could not serve as anticipatory bars for the reason that they were undated.
The dates when they were distributed to the public were not indicated and,
therefore, were useless prior art references. The records do not support the
petitioner's contention that the Letters Patent was obtained by means of fraud
and/or misrepresentation. No evidence whatsoever was presented to show that
Madolaria withheld with intent to deceive material facts which, if disclosed, would
have resulted in the refusal by the Philippine Patent Office to issue the Letters
Patent under inquiry.
The findings of fact of the Director of Patents are conclusive on this Court when
supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show compelling
grounds for a reversal of the findings and conclusions of the Patent Office and
the Court of Appeals. aATHES
SYLLABUS
PHIL 240-253)
Benjamin C. Santos & Ofelia Calcetas-Santos Law Offices and Santos Parungao
Aquino & Santos Law Offices for petitioner.
SYNOPSIS
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Creser Precision Systems, Inc.,
assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 34425
dismissing the complaint for injunction and damages filed against herein private
respondent. The records of the case reveal that private respondent was granted
by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a
Letters Patent No. UM-6938 covering an aerial fuse that was published in the
Bureau of Patent's Official Gazette. That sometime in November 1993, private
respondent discovered that herein petitioner submitted samples of private
respondent's patented aerial fuse to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
for testing. To protect its right, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner
advising it of its existing patent and its rights thereunder, and warned petitioner of
a possible court action should it go on with the testing. In response, petitioner
filed a complaint for injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, and on December 29, 1993, the court a quo issued an order
granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against private
respondent. Herein respondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied by
said court. Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition in the Court of Appeals, and on November 9 1994, it rendered a
decision reversing the trial court's order and dismissing the complaint filed by
petitioner. Hence, the present petition. TADaCH
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition is not meritorious. 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 to institute the petition for injunction and damages
arising from the alleged infringement by private respondent. In fine, the Court
upheld and sustained the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, in the
absence of error or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. In view thereof, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
SYLLABUS
4. ID.; ID.; PATENTEE 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. As correctly ruled by the
respondent Court of Appeals in its assailed decision: "since the petitioner (private
respondent herein) is the patentee of the disputed invention embraced by letters
of patent UM No. 6938 issued to it on January 23, 1990 by the Bureau of
Patents, 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."
(Creser Precision Systems, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118708,
|||
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, the registered patent holder of Letters Patent No. 14561, 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 No. 14561 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
No. 14561.
The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed decision with modification. The Court
held that petitioner's evidence failed to show the substantial sameness of
petitioner's patented compound and Albendazole. While both compounds have
the effect of neutralizing parasites in animals, 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. As for the concept of divisional applications proffered
by petitioner, what this only means is that petitioner's Methyl 5 Prophylthio-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. The Supreme Court did not
award actual damages because no documentary evidence was presented to
substantiate private respondent's claim therefore. Neither did the Court award
attorney's fees because there was no evidence indicating that petitioner was
moved by malice in suing private respondent. The Court, however, awarded
private respondent P20,000.00 temperate or moderate damages, it having
suffered some pecuniary loss the amount of which cannot, by the nature of the
case, be established with certainty.
SYLLABUS
SYLLABUS