CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 118708.

February 2, 1998

Doctrine:

A person or entity who has not been granted letters patent over an invention and has not acquired any
right or title thereto either as assignee or as licensee, has no cause of action for infringement because the
right to maintain an infringement suit depends on the existence of the patent

Facts:
Private respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, production, distribution and
sale of military armaments, munitions, air munitions and other similar materials. On January 23, 1990,
private respondent was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
(BPTTT), a Letters Patent No. UM-69383 covering an aerial fuze which was published in the September-
October 1990, Vol. III, No. 5 issue of the Bureau of Patents Official Gazette.

Sometime in November 1993, private respondent, through its president, Mr. Gregory Floro,Jr., discovered
that petitioner submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
for testing. He learned that petitioner was claiming the aforesaid aerial fuze as its own and planning to bid
and manufacture the same commercially without license or authority from private respondent. To protect
its right, private respondent on December 3, 1993, sent a letter5 to petitioner advising it fro its existing
patent and its rights thereunder, warning petitioner of a possible court action and/or application for
injunction, should it proceed with the scheduled testing by the military on December 7, 1993.

In response to private respondents demand, petitioner filed on December 8, 1993 acomplaint6 for
injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City,

Petitioner’s Argument:

That petitioner is the first, true and actual inventor of an aerial fuze denominated as Fuze, PDR77 CB4
which is developed as early as December 1981 under the Self-Reliance Defense Posture Program
(SRDP) of the AFP

Respondent’s Argument:

That petitioner has no cause of action to file a complaint of infringement against it since it has no patent
for the aerial fuze which it claims to have invented; that petitioners available remedy is to file a petition for
cancellation of patent before the Bureau of Patents; that private respondent as the patent holder cannot
be stripped of its property right over the patented aerial fuze consisting of the exclusive right to
manufacture, use and sell the same and that it stands to suffer irreparable damage and injury if it is
enjoined from the exercise of its property right over its patent

CA ruling:

Thus, 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.

Issue related to the topic:

Whether Petitioner has the right of action for infringement as an entity in possession of a right, title or
interest in and to the patented invention?

Ruling: No.
Ratio:
Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides:

SECTION. 42. Civil action for infringement. Any patentee, or anyone possessing any right,title or
interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights have been infringed, maybring a civil
action before the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial court), torecover from the
infringer damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to securean injunction for the
protection of his right. x x x

Under the aforequoted law, only the patentee or his successors-in-interest may file an action for
infringement. The phrase anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention
upon which petitioner maintains its present suit, refers only to the patentees successors-in-interest,
assignees or grantees since actions for infringement of patent may be brought in the name of the person
or persons interested, whether as patentee, assignees or grantees, of the exclusive right. Moreover, there
can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever right one has to the
invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. In short, a person or entity who has
not been granted letters patent over an invention and has not acquired any right or title thereto either as
assignee or as licensee, has no cause of action for infringement because the right to maintain an
infringement suit depends on the existence of the patent.

Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze. Therefore, it has no legal basis or cause of action to
institute the petition for injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement by private
respondent. While petitioner claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze, still it has no right of property
over the same upon which it can maintain a suit unless it obtains a patent therefor. Under American
jurisprudence, and inventor has no common-law right to a monopoly of his invention 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.

Dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as

to costs.
SO ORDERED.