Republic of the Philippines

North Eastern Mindanao State University

Tandag City, Surigao del Sur
Telefax No. 086-214-4221/086- 214-2723
www.nemsu.edu.ph

Case: Manila Express Payments System (MEPS) vs BTI

Payments Philippines Inc
BACKGROUND
The arbitral tribunal from the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc. (PDRCI)
rendered an arbitral award directing BTI to pay MEPS at least P5.3 million for patent
infringement.
In a resolution, the arbitral body found BTI to have unlawfully copied the patented utility model
of MEPS and to have violated the Intellectual Property Law allegedly in connivance with
Electronic Transfer & Advance Processing Inc. (ETAP).
MEPS had alleged that BTI and ETAP unlawfully copied its automated payment machine.
TouchPay is an automated payment machine that offers electronic transactions for paying utility
bills, prepaid loads, and more. TouchPay’s utility model is registered with the Intellectual
Property Office (IPO).
The Pay&Go kiosk machines, on the other hand, are manufactured by ETAP and deployed by
BTI.
“BTI copied the registered utility model of MEPS ATMs into its APTs of Pay&Go and violated the
copyright law.
The case stemmed from a series of raids conducted by the operatives of the National Bureau of
Investigation-Intellectual Property Rights Division (NBI-IPRD) in July 2020 and March 2021
pursuant to the search warrants issued by Judge Reinalda Estacio-Montesa of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 46, of Manila and Judge Elma M. Rafallo-Lingan of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 159, of Pasig.

OUTCOME
Upon evaluation, the PDRCI tribunal ruled in favor of MEPS and against BTI.
Atty. Romina Miranda, the Senior Agent in the Intellectual Property Rights Division assigned to
make surveillance and investigation of the alleged alterations of MEPS’ APMs and their being
passed on as Pay&Go, testified that she saw personally a number of APMs with MEPS’ serial
numbers on the machines that bore the label Pay&Go and altered APMs which are labeled
Pay&Go but the serial number stickers had been removed.”
Miranda, the tribunal said, checked the serial numbers of Pay&Go machines and found that they
were also the serial numbers of the APMS of MEPS.
She saw the altered MEPS APMS that were made to appear as Pay&Go in several venues,
which were BTI sites.
 Republic of the Philippines
North Eastern Mindanao State University
Tandag City, Surigao del Sur
Telefax No. 086-214-4221/086- 214-2723
www.nemsu.edu.ph

The Pay&Go machines had features and functions similar to TouchPay APMs remitting
payments through automated payment machines.
“The testimony of Atty. Miranda established and confirmed clearly that BTI disclosed to and
shared with E-TAP confidential information on MEPS’s APMs and connived with E-TAP to copy
MEPS’s APMS features and intellectual property and deployed and distributed the altered APM
machines in various locations in Metro Manila,” the ruling said.
“BTI copied the registered utility model of MEPS ATMS into its APTs of Pay&Go and violated
the Copyright law,” the tribunal said.
The crimes of trademark infringement and unfair competition are under Sections 155 and 168,
both in relation to Section 170 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act
No. 8293).

The arbitral tribunal from the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc. (PDRCI) rendered an
arbitral award directing BTI to pay MEPS at least P5.3 million for patent infringement.
The invention or utility model of the TouchPay machines is under patent protection, hence they
cannot be used or imitated without the consent of the patent holder, creator, or inventor.