THE STUDENT AND THE LAW

the never ending journey of learning the law

HOME ABOUT CASE DIGESTS LAW SCHOOL TIPS LAW SCHOOL STORIES COMMENTARIES

Godines v. CA (G.R. Search 

No. 97343)
CATEGORIES
 0 Comments Facts:
Select Category
Respondent SV-Agro Industries acquired a letter
patent issued to one Magdalena Villaruz which covers
a utility model for hand tractor or power tiller by
BLOG STATS
virtue of a deed of assignment executed by the latter
112,243 hits
in its favor. Respondent after suffering a decline in
sales of the patented power tillers, investigated and
discovered that petitioner Godines was manufacturing
the same power tillers as they have. Respondent thus Follow THE STUDENT AND THE LAW

filed a complaint for patent infringement and unfair

competition against petitioner Godines. The trial court
held petitioner liable for infringement. CA affirmed.
FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL

Issue:
Enter your email address to
receive notifications of new
Whether or not petitioner’s products infringe upon the posts by email :)
patent of respondent SV-Agro.
Enter your email address

Ruling: YES.
Follow TSTL

Tests have been established to determine

infringement. These are (a) literal infringement; and (b)
the doctrine of equivalents. In using literal THY FEEDBACK

infringement as a test, “. . . resort must be had, in the

first instance, to the words of the claim. If accused Kindly rate this blog's
content:
matter clearly falls within the claim, infringement is
made out and that is the end of it.” To determine Helpful.

whether the particular item falls within the literal

Meh.
meaning of the patent claims, the court must
Not at all helpful.
juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused
product within the overall context of the claims and
specifications, to determine whether there is exact
identity of all material elements. It appears from the
observation of the trial court that these claims of the View Results

patent and the features of the patented utility model Crowdsignal.com

were copied by petitioner: In appearance and form,

both the floating power tillers of the defendant and
the turtle power tiller of the plaintiff are virtually the
same. Viewed from any perspective or angle, the
power tiller of the defendant is identical and similar to
that of the turtle power tiller of plaintiff in form,
configuration, design and appearance. The parts or
components thereof are virtually the same. In
operation, the floating power tiller of the defendant
operates also in similar manner as the turtle power
tiller of plaintiff. REPOR

Petitioner’s argument that his power tillers were

different from private respondent’s is that of a
drowning man clutching at straws. Recognizing that
the logical fallback position of one in the place of
defendant is to aver that his product is different from
the patented one, courts have adopted the doctrine of
equivalents. Thus, according to this doctrine, “(a)n
infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a
prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept
and, albeit with some modification and change,
performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve substantially
the same result.” In this case, the trial court observed:
But a careful examination between the two power
tillers will show that they will operate on the same
fundamental principles.

We are compelled to arrive at no other conclusion but

that there was infringement.

REPORT THIS AD
 Share this:

     

Related

Sanrio Company Developers Group Societe Des

Limited v. Lim (G.R. of Companies v. CA Produits Nestle v.
No. 168662) (G.R. No. 104583) Dy, Jr. (G.R. No.
172276)

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

G.R. NO. 97343 GODINES V. CA LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

← PREVIOUS NEXT →
Mambulao Lumber Company v. PNB (G.R. Kho v. CA (G.R. No. 115758)
No. L-22973)

LEAVE A REPLY

Enter your comment here...


© 2019 THE STUDENT AND THE LAW
BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.