De leon vs Aguas

The validily of the patent issued by the Philippines Patent Office in favor of the private
respondent and the question over the inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the
improved process therein specified and described are matters which are better
determined by the Philippines Patent Office. The technical staff of the Philippines
Patent Office, composed of experts in their field, have, by the issuance of the patent in
question, accepted the thinness of the private respondent's new tiles as a discovery.
There is a presumption that the Philippines Patent Office has correctly determined the
patentability of the improvement by the private respondent of the process in question.

The respondent's improvement is indeed inventive and goes beyond the exercise of
mechanical skill. He has introduced a new kind of tile for a new purpose. He has
improved the old method of making tiles and pre-cast articles which were not
satisfactory because of an intolerable number of breakages, especially if deep
engravings are made on the tile. He has overcome the problem of producing decorative
tiles with deep engraving, but with sufficient durability. 15 Durability inspite of the
thinness and lightness of the tile, is assured, provided that a certain critical depth is
maintained in relation to the dimensions of the tile

CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP

It is petitioner's contention that it can file, under Section 42 of the Patent Law (R.A. 165),
an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right, title
or interest in and to the patented invention. It advances the theory that while the
absence of a patent may prevent one from lawfully suing another for infringement of
said patent, such absence does not bar the first true and actual inventor of the patented
invention from suing another who was granted a patent in a suit for declaratory or
injunctive relief recognized under American patent laws. This remedy, petitioner points
out, may be likened to a civil action for infringement under Section 42 of the Philippine
Patent Law.

Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides:

Sec. 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, may bring a civil action before the proper Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial court), to recover from the infringer
 damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to secure an
injunction for the protection of his right. . . .

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
patentee's 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 as grantees, of the exclusive right. 12 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. 13 In short, a
person or entity who has not been granted letters patent over an invention and has not
acquired any light 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.

Under American jurisprudence, an inventor has no common-law right to a monopoly of

his invention. He has the right to make, use and vend his own invention, but if he
voluntarily discloses it, such as by offering it for sale, the world is free to copy 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.

ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND JANITO CORPORATION, respondents.

The Patent Law expressly acknowledges that any new model of implements or tools of
any industrial product even if not possessed of the quality of invention but which is of
practical utility is entitled to a patent for utility model. 10 Here, there is no dispute that
the letters patent issued to petitioner are for utility models of audio equipment.

In issuing, reissuing or withholding patents and extensions thereof, the Director of

Patents determines whether the patent is new and whether the machine or device is the
proper subject of patent. In passing on an application, the Director decides not only
questions of law but also questions of fact, i.e. whether there has been a prior public use
or sale of the article sought to be patented. 11 Where petitioner introduces the patent in
evidence, if it is in due form, it affords a prima facie presumption of its correctness and
validity. The decision of the Director of Patents in granting the patent is always
presumed to be correct, and the burden then shifts to respondent to overcome this
presumption by competent evidence.
It is elementary that a patent may be infringed where the essential or substantial
features of the patented invention are taken or appropriated, or the device, machine or
other subject matter alleged to infringe is substantially identical with the patented
invention. In order to infringe a patent, a machine or device must perform the same
function, or accomplish the same result by identical or substantially identical means
and the principle or mode of operation must be substantially the same. It may be noted
that respondent corporation failed to present before the trial court a clear, competent
and reliable comparison between its own model and that of petitioner, and disregarded
completely petitioner's utility Model No. 6237 which improved on his first patented
model.