Vargas v.

Chua

-Angel Vargas, the plaintiff herein, brought this action to restrain the appellants and the other defendant entity, Cham Samco &
Sons, their agents and mandatories, from continuing the manufacture and sale of plows similar to his plow (issued by US
in1924)
-That, since the filing of the complaint to date, the defendant, Petronila Chua, has been manufacturing and selling plows of the
kind, type and design that has been patented.
-Judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering each and every one of them, their agents,
mandatories and attorneys, to henceforth abstain from making, manufacturing, selling or offering for a sale plows
-Defendants Petronila Chua, Coo Pao and Coo Teng Hee, appeal from the judgment of CFI
Issue: Whether the plow, Exhibit F, constitutes a real invention or an improvement for which a patent may be obtained, or if, on
the contrary, it is substantially the same plow represented by Exhibit 3-Chua the patent for which was declared null and void in
the aforementioned case of Vargas vs. F. M. Yaptico & Co., supra.

Held:
- Not only is there no fundamental difference between the two plows but no improvement whatever has been made on the
latest model, for the same working and movement of the beam existed in the original mod el with the advantage, perhaps, that
its graduation could be carried through with more certainty by the use of the bolt which as has already been stated, was
adjustable and movable.
-We are firmly convinced that the appellee is not entitled to the protection he seeks for the simple reason that his plow, Exhibit
F, does not constitute an invention in the legal sense, and because, according to the evidence, the same type of plows had
been manufactured in this country and had been in use in many parts of the Philippine Archipelago, especially in the Province
of Iloilo, long before he obtained his last patent.
-When a patent is sought to be enforced, "the questions of invention, novelty, or prior use, and each of them, are open to
judicial examination." 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 the 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 then
shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption. (Vargas vs. F. M. Yaptico & Co)
-Under the English Statute of Monopolies under the United States Patent Act of February 21, 1793: to entitle a man to a patent,
the invention must be new to the world. "it has been repeatedly held by this court that a single instance of public use of the
invention by a patentee of more than two years before the date of his application for his patent  will be fatal to the validity of the
patent when issued."
-The plow upon which the appellee's contention is based, does not constitute an invention and, consequently, the privilege
invoked by him is untenable and the patent acquired by him should be declared ineffective. The judgment REVERSED.
Appellants ABSOLVED.