Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prior Art – everything which has been made available to the world before the filing Maguan v. CA
date or the priority date of the application claiming the invention. (Sec. 24) - An invention is not considered new or patentable if it was known or used by
others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor named
Inventions pursuant to a commission– the person who created the commissioned in an application for patent for the invention
work shall own the patent, unless otherwise stipulated.
Aguas v. De Leon
Infringement by equivalence (equivalents) Improvement of process of mosaic pre-cast tiles (not invention of the process itself)
- legal method for a patent owner to file an infringement claim even though – patentable
the original product is not completely identical to the infringing product.
- claims determine the scope of protection of the patent. A competing Graham v. John Deere Co.
product falls under the scope of protection of a patent if it fulfills all the Test of non-obviousness - comparison of the subject matter seeking patent protection
elements in one of the claims. with prior art to determine if the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious,
at the time of the invention, to a person with ordinary skill in the art.
- Every element of the original invention must have an equivalent in the
infringing invention for a claim to stand. Phil Pharmawealth Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Pfizer’s exclusive rights to monopolize the product subject of the Patent
[Note for Patent cases, I didn’t include:
only exist within the term of the patent. After this period, Pfizer no longer
D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc., Frank v Kosoyuma, EI Dupont v. IPO
possess any right of monopoly, and as such, there is no more basis for the
search niyo nalang hehe]
issuance of a restraining order or injunction.
- the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use and sell a patented product,
Diamond v. Chakrabarty
article or process exist only during the term of the patent.
A live, human-made microorganism is patentable subject matter under Sec. 101.
Impressions v Lexmark
Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO
Principle of patent exhaustion – a patent owner’s rights over a product should vanish
- Naturally occurring gene sequences and their natural derivative products –
once the patent owner sells the product to a cosumer.
not patent eligible
- Gene sequences refined by synthetic processes to create molecules that do Smith Kline Beckman v. CA
not naturally occur – patent eligible
When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee may not claim
anything beyond what is described in the patent.
COPYRIGHT: -‐ Factual compilations on the other hand may possess the requisite
Literary and artistic works – original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic originality. Copyright on a factual compilation is limited to formatting.
domain protected from the moment of their creation. (Sec. 172) -‐ To establish copyright infringement, 2 elements must be proven:
o Ownership of a valid copyright
Derivative works – considered copyrightable and shall be protected as new works, o Copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.
provided that such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright -‐ In this case, only the first requisite was complied with. Second element is
upon the original works employed or any part thereof, or be construed as to imply absent because facts are not original!!! It is not copyrightable.
any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such -‐ Sweat of the brow doctrine/industrious collection – notion that copyright
original works. (Sec. 173) was a reward for the hard work that went into compiling facts. This is
wrong because it extends copyright protection to selection and arrangement
Non-copyrightable works – procedures, ideas, system, method or operation, concept, of facts. Facts are not copyrightable.
principle, discovery or mere data. (Sec. 175) -‐ Originality/Original to the owner – requires independent creation and
modicum of creativity. (independently created by the author and possesses
What if there are 2 authors? – rules on co-ownership will apply. But if the work at least some minimal degree of creativity.
consists of parts that can be attributed separately to each author, then the author of
each part shall be the original owner of the copyright in the part he has created. ABS-CBN v. Gozon
Fair use
What if the work was created by the author in the course of his employment? – -‐ exception to copyright owner’s monopoly of the work’s usage
Copyright belongs to employee if – creation is not part of his regular duties -‐ defined as the privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable
Copyright belongs to employer if – work is a result of the performance of his regular manner without the copyright owner’s consent or by copying the material’s
duties theme or idea rather than its expression.
4-fold test to determine fair use:
Work made in pursuance of a commission – person who commissioned the work o purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
shall have ownership of the work but copyright belongs to the creator, unless there is commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes
stipulation to the contrary. o nature of the copyrighted work
o amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
Factors to determine Fair Use copyrighted work as a whole
1. Purpose and character of the use, including w/n such use is for non-profit or o effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work
commercial purposes transformative test - used in reviewing the purpose and character of the usage of the
2. Nature of the copyrighted work copyrighted work. The court must look into whether the copy of the work adds "new
3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted expression, meaning or message" to transform it into something else.
work as a whole Meta-use - kind of use that does not necessarily transform the original work by
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market value of the copyrighted adding expression, meaning, or message, but only changes the purpose of the work.
work.
Baker v. Selden
Star Atletica v. Varsity Brands -‐ Copyright protection for a book explaining an art or system extends only to
Feature of a useful article; when copyrightable the author’s unique explanation of it and does not prevent others from using
-‐ if it can be perceived as a 2 or 3-dimensional artwork that is separable from the system or the forms incidentally used.
the useful article and if it would be a protectable pictorial, graphical, or -‐ Interpreted as allowing copying for use as opposed to copying for
sculptural work on its own. explanation. (what does this even mean… not defined in the case).
-‐ Must be able to be identified separately from the article and capable of
existing separately from the article. Pear v. Shoemart
-‐ Light box is not a proper subject of copyright laws. It is neither a literary
Feist Publication v. Rural nor artistic work but an engineering or marketing invention.
-‐ Facts are not original and cannot be copyrightable. They are part of the
public domain available to every person.
Ching v. Salinas o may be used w/n a copyright holder “knowingly materially
-‐ Utility models are not literary or artistic works, therefore not copyrightable. represented” that it held a good faith belief that the material is not
-‐ Patent instead of copyrights may be availed of when it comes to utility fair use. Willful blind defendant is one who takes deliberate actions
models. to avoid confirming a high probability of wrong doing.
Olano v. Lim Section 21. Patentable Inventions. - Any technical solution of a problem in any field
-‐ Drawings/sketches of hatch doors are not artistic works within the meaning of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially
of copyright laws. A hatch door is an object of utility. Therefore, not applicable shall be patentable. It may be, or may relate to, a product, or process, or
copyrightable! an improvement of any of the foregoing.