6.) Vargas v. F.M. Yaptico & Co., G.R. NO.

14101, September 24, 1919

Facts:
The plaintiff-appellant Angel Vargas, a farmer, took it upon himself to produce, with the native
plow as the model, an improved adjustable plow. He was issued patents by the United States
Patent Office for his so-called invention of an improved adjustable plow with the use his own
native plow. A certified copy of the patent was filed in the Division of Patents, Copyrights, and
Trademarks of the Executive Bureau, Government of the Philippine Islands. The patent and its
registry was also published.

Defendant F. M. Yaptico & Co. (Ltd.), a firm engaged in the foundry business in Iloilo City, was
a manufacturer of plow parts. It produced points, shares, shoes, and heel pieces in a considerable
amount adapted to replace worn-out parts of the Vargas plow. The owner of the patent, and thus
the proper party to institute judicial proceedings, began action in the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo to enjoin the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 1020232 by the defendant, F. M
Yaptico & Co. (Ltd.), and to recover the damages suffered by reason of this infringement, to
which
the court issued the preliminary injunction prayed for.

The defendant denied the allegations and defended that the patent lacked novelty or invention,
that there was no priority of ideas or device in the principle and construction of the plow, and
that the plow, whose manufacture it was sought to have enjoined by the plaintiff, had already
been in public use for more than two years before the application of the plaintiff for his patent.

The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, declaring null and without effect the
patent in question and dismissing the suit with costs against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff
appealed said judgement.

Issues:
1. Whether the patented invention is void for lack of novelty and invention?
2. Whether the patent is invalid considering that the plow had already been in public use prior
registration.

Ruling:
1. Yes, the patent if void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the plow
of the plaintiff is not different from the native plow, except in the material, in the form, in the
weight and the grade of the result, the said differences giving it neither a new function nor a new
result distinct from the function and the result obtained from the native plow. Also, its
production does not presuppose the exercise of the inventive faculty but merely of mechanical
skill, which does not give a right to a patent of an invention under the provisions of the Patent
Law.

2. Yes, the patent is void. Under the provisions of the statute, an inventor's creation must not
have been in public use or on sale in the United States (and the Philippine Islands) for more than
two
years prior to his application.
Further, it was proved that the invention was used in public at Iloilo by others than Vargas, the
inventor, more than two years before the application for the patent thus, the patent is invalid.