JRU College of Law Intellectual Property Law Course Outline 2011 By: Atty. Rean Mayo D.V.

Javier Main reference: Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293) I. Introduction

Section 3 A. What does Intellectual Property consist of? (Sec. 4.1, IP Code) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Circuits 7. Secrets) B. Functions of the Intellectual Property Office (Sec. 5) Jurisdiction of the Director-General of the IPO--- appeals process (Sec. 7) 1. Bureau of Patents (Sec. 8) 2. Bureau of Trademarks (Sec. 9) 3. Bureau of Legal Affairs (Sec. 10) C. International Treaties 1. Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property Smith Kline vs CA, G. R. No. 121867, 24 July 1997 a) National treatment b) Right of priority 2. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)
Page 1 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE

Copyright and related rights Trademarks and Service Marks Geographic Indications Industrial Designs Patents 6. Lay-Out Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Protection of Undisclosed Information (Trade

G. Non-Patentable Inventions (Sec. The Application (Sec. Non-Prejudicial Disclosure (Sec. 25) E.utility models vs patents for invention 3. G. First-to-File-Rule (Sec. 111 SCRA 238 1c) Industrial Applicability (Sec. 3113388.II. Patentable Inventions (Sec. 21) 1. 32) Page 2 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . Right of Priority (Sec. R. 24) Manzano vs CA. purpose 1. No. 27) C. No. 15 March 1928 Vargas vs Yaptico. 22) D.process vs product patent for invention 2. No. 68 and 73 G. 23) What is prior art? (Sec. L-4720. No. 30) H. 19 January 1909 Aguas vs De Leon. R. 29) See Secs. Patents A. Utility Models --. 28) F. Right to a Patent (Sec. 31) I. R. L-27793. R. Elements of Patentability 1a) Novelty: (Sec. Industrial Designs B. Inventions Created Pursuant to a Commission (Sec. Patents. 14101. Patent Application 1. 26) Carlos Gsell vs Yap Jue. G. G. 5 September 1997 Frank vs Gohn. 24 September 1919 1b) Inventive Step (Sec. Patents for Invention --.

Corrections/Changes in Patents (Secs. Remedies of a Person with a Right to a Patent 1.R. . 118708. 39) Foreign J. Surrender of Patent (Sec. 02 February 1998 3. 36) 5a). Publication of the Court Order (Sec. 35) 4a). 57-60) O. Rules on Disclosure and Description 5. No. R. 33) Pittsburgh Plate Glass vs Director of Patents. Information Concerning Corresponding Application for Patents (Sec. 38) 8. Rights Conferred by a Patent Application After Publication (Sec.2. 46) L. Procedure for Grant of Patent (Secs. Cancellation of Patents and Substitution of Patentee (Sec. 54) M. 67) 2. 29 March 1974 3. Appointment of Agent or Representative (Sec. G. 61-66) P. 68) Creser Precision vs CA. 47-53. The Claims (Sec. 69) 4. The Request (Sec. Remedies of the True and Actual Inventor (Sec. G. 70) Page 3 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . 34) 4. The Abstract (Sec. 58-60) K. 40-45. Unity of Invention (Sec. Disclosure and Description of the Invention (Sec. 56) N. No. 37) 7. Term of Patent (Sec. Patent Application by Persons not having the Right to a Patent (Sec. Rules on Claims Interpretation 6. L-22773. Time to File Action in Court (Sec.

Infringement of the exclusive right to make the product 1d). Rights Conferred by Patent (Sec. Infringement of the exclusive right to sell the product 1h). sale. Authorization to sell the product 1i). 13 September 1993 5c). G. Authorization to use the product 1g). No. The use. 74) Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims (Sec. 4. Authorization to make the product 1e). Authorization to use the process 1m). 75) 5a). Infringement Page 4 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . importation of products directly obtained through the process 2. 15 March 1996 5b). 115106. Infringement of the exclusive right to import the product 1j). R. 73) Use of Invention by Government (Sec. Limitations of Patent Rights (Sec. 76) 6a). Civil Action for Infringement (Sec. Infringement of the exclusive right to use the product 1f).Q. Infringement of the exclusive right to use the process 1l). No. 5. No. G. 16 April 2009 1a). Essence of Doctrine of Equivalents Del Rosario vs CA. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents Godines vs CA. Two Steps in Infringement Determination 6. 71) Konia Drug vs RTC of Guagua. 149907. 72) Prior User (Sec. G. R. 3. Scope of Protection for product patent 1b). Authorization to import the product 1k). Rights of Patentees and Infringement of Patents 1. 97343. Scope of Protection for process patent 1c). R.

Defenses to Infringement and Revocation 6d). Compulsory Licensing (Sec. 78) Based on article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement. 9. G. Patent Infringement Maguan vs CA. 206 6e). Assignment and Transmission of Rights (Sec. R. 83 and 84) 13. 28 November 1986 Frank vs Kosuyama. L-45101. 85-92) 14. 108-111) Ching vs Salinas. 80) 10. No. Registration of Utility Models (Sec. The Law on Copyright See Section 171 A. 59 Phil. R. No. 93-102) Parke Davis vs Doctor’s Pharma. 29 September 1988 15. 103107) 16. 79) 9a). Requirement of Notice (Sec. Remedies 7. 82542. 112-120) III. Copyright Protection and Cultural Development Page 5 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . 124 SCRA 115 Price vs Unilab. Criminal Action for Repetition of Infringement (Secs. Industrial Design (Sec. 77) 8. Limitation of Action for Damages (Sec. Patent Found Invalid may be Cancelled (Sec. 82) 12. Voluntary Licensing (Sec. 29 June 2005 17. G. Burden of Proof (Sec. Copyright as Right to Prevent Others 2. Contributory Infringement 6c). Defenses in Action for Infringement (Sec. 161295. Copyright Reflects Balancing of Competing Claims 3. Damages. G. Primary Objective of Copyright 1. 81) 11.6b). R. Infringement Action by a Foreign National (Sec. Process Patents. No.

171. 175-176) Joaquin. Rules on Co-Ownership 4. Copyright on Economic Rights (Sec. 10 August 2006 C. Derivative Works (Sec. Works of Joint Authorship 3a). 174) D. G. Tests of Joint Authorship DE MINIMIS TEST COPYRIGHTABLE MATTER TEST 3b). Anonymous and Pseudonymous Works (Sec. ARTISTIC AND SCIENTIFIC WORKS Salient Features of the Intellectual Property Code B. L-36402. 178. 177) Filipino Society of Composers vs Tan.1. A Derivative Work is Substantially Similar to the Underlying Work 3. The Originality Requirement 3. 179) Page 6 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . 148222. No. E. Rules on Copyright Ownership (Sec. 172) Pearl and Dean vs SM. Works not Protected (Sec. 178) 1. 173) 1. R. 16 March 1987 F. Inc. 119280. R. Jr.. 15 August 2003 Unilever vs CA. G. G. The Underlying Work Copyright Dominates the Derivative Work Copyright 4. Literary and Artistic Works (Sec.Principles of the BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY. and BJ Productions vs Drilon. No. R. Derivative Work vis-a-vis a Compilation (Sec.3) 2. Derivative Works in General 2. Sec. No. Meaning of “Author” (Sec.

186) Reproduction of Published Work (Sec. 195) Contribution to Collective Work (Sec. 3. 4. 7. 184) 1. 5. 193) Breach of Contract (Sec. 191-192) Manly Sportswear vs Dadodette Enterprises J. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work (Sec. 199) 1. 4. 2. 190) I. 183) H. Four Factors that Determine Fair Use * THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF USE * THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK * THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION USED * THE EFFECT OF USE UPON THE POTENTIAL MARKET 2. 188) Reproduction of Computer Program (Sec. 3. Limitations on Copyright (Sec. 198) 7. Moral Rights Scope of Moral Rights (Sec. 189) Importation for Personal Purposes (Sec. Transfer or Assignment of Copyright (SEC. Work of Architecture (Sec. 181) Filing of Assignment or License (Sec. 196) Editing. 2. 6. 5. Term of Moral Rights (Sec. 187) Reprographic Reproduction by Libraries (Sec. 6.G. 5. 194) Waiver of Moral Rights (Sec. Arranging and Adaptation of Work (Sec. 180) 1. 197) 6. Enforcement Remedies (Sec. Rights to Proceeds in Subsequent Transfers (Sec. 200-201) Page 7 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . K. 3. 182) Designation of Society (Sec. Divisibility of Rights Written Assignment Right of Assignee to Enforce Copyright Joint Copyright Ownership Copyright and Material Object (Sec. 185) 1a). Deposit and Notice (Sec. 4.

218-219) IV. Element of Copying and Access 1f). Remedies against Infringement 2. Contributory Infringement 1b). G. No. 168662. Elements of a Suitable Trademark (Sec. The Law on Trademarks A. L-48413. 175769. Producers of Sound Recordings (Sec. 30 June 1980 1. G. Vicarious Copyright Infringement 1c). NBI-Microsoft Corp. Rights of Performers. Element of Substantial Similarity 1g). Producers of Sound Recordings and Broadcasting Organizations (Sec. 213-215) Q. Broadcasting Organizations (Sec. G. Infringement Phoenix vs Ramos. 29 March 1988 Merriam School vs CA and National Bookstore. G. Presumption of Authorship (Sec. No. The Functions of Trademarks B. Term of Protection (Sec. 123) Page 8 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . Direct vs. No. 19 January 2009 O. No. Elements of Infringements Pacita Habana vs Felicidad Robles. 202-207) M. L-32339. G. R. 03 August 2006 1e). Limitations on Protection (Sec. R. 19 February 2008 People vs Choi. 211) ABS-CBN vs PMSI. Criminal Penalties (Sec. 217) 3. 152950. No. Remedies for Infringement (Sec. R. R. 208-210) N. R. vs Judy Hwang. 216) 1a). 212) P.L. Sanrio vs Lim. Idea-Expression Dichotomy 1d).

L-23959. Inc. L-24802. vs San Francisco Coffee. L-26557. The Acquisition of Trademarks (Sec. G.. 122) Coffee Partners. G. R. No. 157216. Distinctiveness Descriptive Trademarks Suggestive Trademarks Arbitrary Trademarks Absolutely Unregistrable Registrable Marks and Conditionally DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY MEANING CONFLICT WITH PRIOR RIGHTS Mirpuri vs CA G. L-28499. R. G. 5. No. L-28554. L-18337. G. 29 April 1977 Chua Che vsPPO. 166115. 02 February 2007 3.R. 30 January 1965 246 Corp. G. L-28744.R. R. 31 March 1966 2. 29 April 1971 American Cyanamid vs Director of Patents. No. 169504. No. G. Actual Use System Unno Commercial Enterprises. No. R. Inc. L-20635. 19 March 1972 Page 9 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . G. 18 February 1970 Acoje Mining vs Director of Patents. R. No. 14 October 1968 American Wire vs Director of Patents. R. G. 19 November 1999 DOCTRINE OF RELATED GOODS C. vs General Milling Corp. 6. L-29123. 114508.R. 28 February 1983 Sy Ching vs Gaw Liu. No. G. Commercially Viable Trademark Phil. No. G. No. L-26676. 30 July 1982 Victorias Milling vs Ong Su. 7. 30 Sept 1977 Etepha vs Director of Patents. No. No. R.. G. vs Daway. Characteristics of Registrable Trademarks Lim Kiah vs Kaynee. No. No. 4. R. G. 03 March 2010 1. R. R. G.1. R. 20 November 2003 Macdonalds vs Macjoy. Refining vs Ng Sam.

G. The Filing Date (Sec. L-24295. 21 February 1992 General Garments vs Director of Patents. 134) 13. 139) 16. 124-136) Dermaline vs Myra. 16 August 2010 4. 146) Registration of Trade Names and Corporate Names: Philips Export vs CA. Classification of Goods and Services (Sec. Grant of Application Number and Filing Date (Sec. Registration System 3. R. 142-143) 19. No. Maintenance Requirement – Affidavit of Use or NonUse (Sec. 190065. Proceedings After Registration (Sec. No. 30 September 1971 D. Examination of Application (Sec. Supplemental Register 18. Cancellation Proceedings (Sec. Duration of Certificate of Registration (Sec. 145) 15. 140. Opposition Proceeding 2. 124. Filing Requirements Under the Trademark Law Treaty and the Intellectual Property Code 6.2. 127) 10. 135138) Amigo Manufacturing vs Cluett Peabody. 152) 20. Effect of Registration in the Principal Register (Sec. Issuance of Certificate of Registration (Sec. 139300. 133) 12. Notice of Registration (Sec.R. No. 144) 9. Publication for Opposition (Sec. 14 March 2001 14. R. The Protection of Trademarks Contested or inter partes cases or proceedings in the IPO: 1. 9616. G. Requirements for Foreign-Based Application 5. G. 125) 8. Procedure for registration (Sec.R. 132) 11. G. 147) 17. Filing Requirements Under the New Rules and Regulations on Trademarks 7. 151-154) Page 10 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . Renewal of Registration (Sec. Rules on Representation (Sec.2. No.

19 March 2002 McDonald’s vs L. G. 20 April 2010 Philip Morris vs Fortune Tobacco. 24 December 2008 Levi’s vs Lim.R. 154342. 169974. No. 23 October 1997 In-N-Out Burger vs Sehwani. No. G. Trademark Infringement (Sec. 09 November 1989 5. 161693. G. 179127. 118192. G. R. R.R. Unfair Competition (Sec. L-31389. 30 September 1971 Espiritu vs Petron. 16 December 2009 Emerald Garment vs CA. vs Maxicorp. R. 18 July 1995 Mighty vs E and J Gallo. No. 24 November 2009 Batistis vs People. 08 February 1934 Alhambra Cigar vs Mojica. vs CA. No. R. L-24295. 181571. 26 February 1988 General Garments vs Director of Patents. 13 January 1930 Del Monte vs CA. R. 14 July 2004 United Features Syndicate vs Munsingwear. 156-160) for Infringement and Unfair Shangri-la Corp.3. 158589. 18 April 1941) Superior vs Kunnan. R. G. L-78325. Civil Actions Competition (Sec. G. G. No.R. 143993. No. L-6623. 21 March 1914 Inchausti vs Song Fo. R. 75067. Kho vs CA. R. R. No. R. R. 155) Teodoro Kalaw vs Lever Brother. G. 160054-55. 168) Samson vs Daway. No. Big Mak Burger. 76193. R. 114802. No. 13 September 2004 DOCTRINE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION E Spinner vs Neuss Hesslein. 115115. L-8937. G. 100098. G. 96161. 18 August 2004 4. G. G. G. G. No.R.R. No. No. No. No. No. 29 December 1995 Conrad and Co. 28 June 2005 Proline Sports cvs CA. 21 February 1992 Microsoft Corp. R.R. 26 January 1912 Page 11 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . No. R. No. G. No.C. G. R. No. R. Vs CA. G. G. 162311. G. G. G. 25 January 1990 Seinosuke Ogura vs Chua. L-46817. G. No. No. 140946. 21 July 2004 Samson vs Cabanes. 04 December 2008 Philips Export vs CA. No. 27 June 2006 Puma vs IAC. R. G. R. G. No. 170891. No. No. G. R. L-39889.

150877. No. G. No. G.6. No. Elements of Trademark Infringement Sterling vs Farbenfabriken Bayer. 169) 8. 143193. Trademark Assignment and Licensing (Sec. L-19906. G. L-32747. R. 149-150) Sasot vs People. R. R. 95 Phil 1 Fruit of the Loon vs CA. 04 April 2001 Sambar vs Levi’s. Criminal Actions (Sec.R. G. 04 May 2006 Page 12 of 12 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW COURSE OUTLINE . G. False Designation of Origin (Sec. 112012. R. 170) E. 06 March 2002 FILTRATION APPROACH Tests of confusion TOTALITY APPROACH TEST OF DOMINANCY Co Tiong vs Director of Patents. No. 29 November 1984 7. R. 29 June 2005 Kho vs Lanzanas. No. No. G. 132604. 30 April 1969 Societe Des Produits vs CA.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful