patent cases
DESCRIPTION
CompilationTRANSCRIPT
-
15##Interpreting#Claims!!Merill#v#Yeomans!!Summary:##The!Court!resolved!a!problem!in!construing!the!scope!of!a!patent!claim.! The! Merrill! held! a! claim! to! a! new! manufacture! of!deodorized! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils.! Merrill! argued! that!manufacture! referred! to! the!product! itself!while! the!Yeomans!argued!that!the!term!referred!only!to!the!process!for!making!that!product.!After!reviewing!the!patent!in!detail,!the!Court!found!that!manufactured!meant!process.!!Facts:!!Merrill! filed! a! patent! infringement! case! against! the! respondent!for! purchasing,! using! and! selling! Neutral! Topaz! Oil! (odorless!lubricant)!made!from!a!process!by!Tweedle.!Merrill!has!a!patent!over! (1)! improved! manufacture! of! deodorized! heavy!hydrocarbon!oils!and!(2)!superheated!steam!within!the!still.!My!invention!relates!to!the!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils,!which!have!been!produced!by!distilling!crude!petroleum,!or!the!crude!oils.!Before!his! invention,! the! problem! is! that! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils!produced! had! a! persistent! disagreeable! smell! that! when! it! is!mixed!with!other!oils!it!was!the!predominant!odor,!and!pervaded!the!whole!mass.!To!make!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils!free!from!the!characteristic!unpleasant!odors!of!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils,!I!take!the! heavy! oils!which! have! been! separated! from! the! lighter! oils!and! from! mechanical! impurities! by! distillation,! he! then! distils!from! the! heavy! oils! the! volatile! matters! from! which! the!objectionable! odors! arise,! and! at! the! same! time! prevents! new!formations!of!such!matters!by!keeping!the!temperature!of!the!oil!in! the! still! below! that! at! which! these! matters! form! by!decomposition!of! the!oil.!After!distilling!off! from!20!to!30!%,!as!the! case!may!be,!of!volatile!matters,! the!oil! is! left! to! cool! in! the!still,!and!is!then!drawn!off!into!tanks,!for!sale!and!use.!I! claim! the! aboveRdescribed! new! manufacture! of! deodorized!heavy! hydrocarbon! oils,! suitable! for! lubricating! and! other!
purposes,!free!from!the!characteristic!odors!of!hydrocarbon!oils,!and!having!a! slight! smell! like! fatty!oil,! from!heavy!hydrocarbon!oils,!by!treating!them!substantially!as!hereinbefore!described.!!If! Merrills! patent! was! for! a! new! oil,! the! product! of! a! mode! of!treating! the! oils! of! that! character! which! he! describes! in! his!application,! the! defendants! may! be! liable,! for! they! bought! and!sold,!without!license!or!other!authority!from!him,!an!oil!which!is!proved!to!be!almost!if!not!quite!identical!with!the!one!which!he!produced.! However,! if! Merrills! patent! is! only! for! the! mode! of!treating! these! oils! invented! and! described! by! him! RR! in! other!words,! for! his! new! process! of! making! this! new! article! of!hydrocarbon! oil! RR! then! it! is! clear! the! defendants! have! not!infringed!the!patent,!because!they!never!used!that!process,!or!any!other,!for!they!manufactured!none!of!the!oils!which!they!bought!and!sold.!!Issue:!!WON! the! subject! of! the! Merrills! patent! is! for! a! new! article! of!manufacture,!or!for!a!new!process!of!manufacturing?!Process!!Held:!!!Merrill! has! described! and! claimed! a! patent! for! the! process! of!deodorizing! the! heavy! hydrocarbon! oils,! and! that! he! has! not!claimed! as! his! invention! the! product! of! that! process.! The!language!in!the!specifications!aids!us!in!construing!the!claim.!A!manufacture! of! oils,! by! treating! them! substantially! as!hereinbefore! described,! is! a! claim! for! the! described! process!rather!than!for!the!product.!!Throughout!the!application!the!word!"manufacture"! is! used! in! the! sense! of! the! word! "process"! RR! a!word!which!could!be!substituted!for!it!without!a!shade!of!change!in!the!meaning.!As!it!can!here!mean!nothing!else!but!process,!we!have!a!definition!of!the!meaning!to!be!attached!to!it!in!other!parts!of!the!same!paper!if!that!meaning!were!otherwise!doubtful.!!It!is!impossible! to! read! the! four! printed! pages! of! specifications! in!which! appellant! minutely! describes! his! invention! without!observing!that!they!are!almost!wholly!directed!to!the!apparatus,!the!mode! of! using! it,! and! the! peculiar! process! of! distillation! by!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
which!the!more!volatile!parts!of!the!heavy!oils,!which!contain!the!offensive! odors,! are! separated! from! the!main! body! of! the! oil.! If!the!oil!alone!was!to!be!patented,!by!whatever!process!made,!this!elaborate!description!of!one!particular!process!was!unnecessary.!"I! claim! the! above! described! new!manufacture! of! hydrocarbon!oils,!by!treating!them!substantially!as!hereinbefore!described."!It!seems!to!us!that!the!most!natural!meaning!of!these!words!is!that!"I! claim! this! new! mode! of! manufacturing! hydrocarbon! oils,! by!treating!them!as!hereinbefore!described."!If!the!product!is!meant,!the! words! "by! treating! them! substantially! as! hereinbefore!described"! are! useless.! They! are! not! only! useless! but!embarrassing,! for! by! the! well! settled! rules! of! construing! all!instruments,! some! importance!must!be!attached! to! them,!and! if!they! are! to! be! regarded! at! all,! they! must! either! refer! to! the!process!of!making! the!oils! for!which! the!applicant! is! claiming!a!patent!or!they!are!intended!to!limit!his!claim!for!a!patent!for!the!product!to!that!product!only,!when!produced!by!treating!the!oils!in!the!manner!before!described.!!A!new!product!or!manufacture,!and!a!new!process!or!method!of!producing! the! new! article,! are! the! proper! subjects! of! separate!and!distinct!claims!in!an!original!patent.!!There!was!no!patent! infringement!because!Tweedles!process! is!not!a!deodorizing!or!disinfecting!process!to!remove!the!odorous!bodies!that!had!been!formed!by!or!existed!after!distillation.!It! is!designed!to!so!conduct!the!distillation!as!to!leave!the!distillate!of!crude!petroleum!free! from!those!odorous!bodies.!Tweedle's!has!been!well!described!as!a!process!of!prevention,!while!Merrill's!is!one!of!cure.!!!Philips#v#Awh#Corporation!!Brief!Fact!Summary:!!Phillips! (Plaintiff)! sued! AWH! Corp.! (Defendant)! for! patent!infringement,!and!contended!that!the!term!"baffles"!in!claim!1!of!his! patented! invention! (the! '798! patent)! was! not! used! in! a!
restrictive!manner!that!would!exclude!structures!that!extend!at!a!90Rdegree!angle!from!walls,!and!that!the!plain!meaning!should!be!given!to!the!term,!rather!than!limiting!the!term!to!corresponding!structures! disclosed! in! the! patent's! specification,! or! their!equivalents.!!Synopsis!of!Rule!of!Law:!A!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!should!not!be!restricted!to! corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the! specification,! or!their! equivalents,! when! the! plain! meaning! of! the! term! can! be!used!without!causing!the!limitation.!!Facts:!Plaintiff! invented,!and!obtained!a!patent!on,!modular,!steelRshell!panels! that! could!be!welded! together! to! form!walls! resistant! to!vandalism.! ! Plaintiff! sued! Defendant! for! patent! infringement.!!Claim! 1! of! his! patent! (the! '798! patent)! stated:! "further! means!disposed!inside!the!shell! for! increasing!its! load!bearing!capacity!comprising! internal! steel! baffles! extending! inwardly! from! the!steel! shell! walls."! ! The! district! court! found! that! the! accused!infringing!product!did!not!contain!"baffles"!as!that!term!was!used!in! Claim! 1,! and! therefore,! granted! summary! judgment! of!noninfringement.! !On!appeal,! the!original!court!of!appeals!panel!concluded! that! the! term! "baffles"! was! used! in! a! restrictive!manner!in!the!patent!which!excluded!structures!that!extend!at!a!90Rdegree! angle! from! the! walls.! ! That! panel! noted! that! the!specification! repeatedly! referred! to! the! ability! of! the! claimed!baffles! to! deflect! projectiles! and! that! it! described! the! baffles! as!being!"disposed!at!such!angles!that!bullets!which!might!penetrate!the!outer!steel!panels!are!deflected."! !The!panel!also!noted! that!nowhere! did! the! patent! disclose! a! rightRangle! baffle,! and! that!baffles!angled!at!90!degrees! to! the!wall!were! found! in! the!prior!art.!!The!panel!added!that!the!patent!specification!"is!intended!to!support!and!inform!the!claims,!and!here!it!makes!it!unmistakably!clear! that! the! invention! involves!baffles!angled!at!other! than!90![degrees]."! ! The! dissenting! judge! argued! that! the! panel! had!improperly! limited!the!claims!to!the!specific!embodiment!of! the!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
invention!disclosed!in!the!specification,!rather!than!adopting!the!"plain! meaning"! of! the! term! "baffles."! ! The! court! of! appeals!agreed!to!rehear!the!appeal!en!banc.!!Issue:!!Should!a!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!be!restricted!to!corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the! specification,! or! their!equivalents,! when! the! plain! meaning! of! the! term! can! be! used!without!causing!the!limitation?!!Held:!(Bryson,!J.)!!No.!!A!term!in!a!claim!of!a!patented!invention!should!not! be! restricted! to! corresponding! structures! disclosed! in! the!specification,!or!their!equivalents,!when!the!plain!meaning!of!the!term!can!be!used!without!causing!the!limitation.!!The!issue!of!the!claim! interpretation! is! framed! by! ! 112! of! the! Patent! Act! (35!U.S.C.!!112).!!The!second!paragraph!of!that!section!instructs!the!court!to!look!to!the!language!of!the!claims!to!determine!what!"the!applicant!regards!as!his! invention."! !On!the!other!hand,!the!first!paragraph!requires! that! the!specification!describe! the! invention!presented!in!the!claims.!!Therefore,!the!main!question!presented!is! the! extent! to!which! the! court! should! resort! to! and! rely! on! a!patent's!specification!in!seeking!to!establish!the!proper!scope!of!its!claims.!!First,!it!is!a!"bedrock!principle"!of!patent!law!that!"the!claims!of!a!patent!define! the! invention! to!which! the!patentee! is!entitled!the!right!to!exclude."!!Also,!the!words!of!a!claim!are!given!their!ordinary!and!usual!meaning,!which!is!the!meaning!that!the!term! would! have! to! a! person! of! ordinary! skill! in! the! art! in!question!at!the!time!of!the!invention.!!Importantly,!the!person!of!ordinary!skill!in!the!art!is!believed!to!read!the!claim!term!in!the!context!of!the!entire!patent,!including!the!specification,!not!just!in!the! context! of! the! particular! claim! where! the! disputed! term!appears.! ! When! the! ordinary! meaning! of! claim! language! is!obvious!even!to! lay! judges,!general!application!dictionaries!may!be!helpful.!!However,!if!the!ordinary!meaning!is!not!obvious,!the!court!must! look!to!the!sources!available!to!the!public!that!show!the!meaning!of! the! language!in!question!that!a!person!skilled! in!
the!art!would!have!understood.!!Those!sources!include!the!words!of! the!claims!themselves,! the!remainder!of! the!specification,! the!prosecution! history,! and! external! evidence! regarding! relevant!scientific!principles,!the!meaning!of!technical!terms,!and!the!state!of! the! art.! ! Claims! must! be! read! in! view! of! their! own!specifications.! ! External! evidence! may! include! experts! and!technical! dictionaries.! ! However,! placing! greater! emphasis! on!technical! dictionaries! and! encyclopedias! in! approaching! the!construction! of! claim! language,! rather! than! on! the! specification!and! prosecution! history,! conflicts! with! rulings! that! the!specification!is!the!single!best!guide!to!the!meaning!of!a!disputed!term! and! that! the! specification! acts! as! a! dictionary! when! it!specifically! defines! terms! used! in! the! claims! or!when! it! defines!terms! by! implication.! ! The! main! problem!with! considering! the!dictionary! as! so! important! is! that! it! focuses! the! inquiry! on! the!abstract!meaning!of!words!rather! than!on! the!meaning!of! claim!terms!within!the!context!of!the!patent.! !The!"ordinary!meaning"!of!a!claim!term!when!viewed!properly!is!the!meaning!an!ordinary!artisan! would! determine! after! reading! the! entire! patent.! ! The!problem! resulting! from! the! district! court! starting! every! case!using!the!broad!dictionary!definition!of!a!word!is!a!failure!to!fully!understand! how! the! specification! totally! limits! that! definition!and! the! error! will! systematically! cause! the! construction! of! the!claim! to! be! overly! expansive.! ! If! the! court! focuses! from! the!beginning!on!how!the!patentee!used!the!claim!term!in!the!claims,!specification,! and! prosecution! history,! the! risk! of! systematic!overRbreadth!is!greatly!reduced,!rather!than!starting!with!a!broad!definition! and! then! cutting! it! down.! ! In! cases! that! are! hard! to!determine!whether!a!person!of!skill!in!the!art!would!understand!the!embodiments!to!define!the!outer! limits!of! the!claim!term!or!just!to!be!correct!in!nature,!trying!to!resolve!that!problem!in!the!context!of! the!particular!patent! is! likely! to! capture! the! scope!of!the!actual!invention!more!accurately!than!either!strictly!limiting!the! scope! of! the! claims! to! the! embodiments! disclosed! in! the!specification! or! separating! the! claim! language! from! the!specification.! ! It! is! clear! from! Claim! 1! when! applying! these!principles!that!the!baffles!must!be!made!of!steel,!must!be!a!part!of!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
the!loadRbearing!means!for!the!wall!section,!and!must!be!pointed!inward!from!the!walls.! !Both!parties!specify!that!"baffles"!refers!to!objects!that!check,!impede,!or!obstruct!the!flow!of!something.!!The!other!claims!of!the!'798!patent!and!the!specification!support!the! conclusion! that! persons! of! ordinary! skill! in! the! art! would!understand! the! baffles!written! in! the! patent! to! be! loadRbearing!objects! with! the! purpose! of! checking,! impeding,! or! obstructing!flow.! ! Several! times! the! specification! discusses! positioning! the!baffles!so!as!to!deflect!projectiles.!!It!is!clear!in!the!patent!that!the!invention! envisions! baffles! that! serve! that! function,! but! it! does!not!imply!that!in!order!to!qualify!as!baffles!within!the!meaning!of!the! claims,! the! internal! support! structures! must! serve! the!projectileRdeflecting! function! in! all! the! embodiments! of! all! the!claims.! ! Several! other! purposes! are! served! by! the! baffles! as!discussed! in! the! specification,! such! as! providing! structural!support.! ! Also,! the! specification! provides! for! "overlapping! and!interlocking!the!baffles!to!produce!substantially!an!intermediate!barrier! wall! between! the! opposite! [wall]! faces"! to! create!insulation!compartments.!!The!fact!that!the!written!description!of!the!'798!patent!sets!forth!multiple!objectives!to!be!served!by!the!baffles! recited! in! the! claims! confirms! that! the! term! "baffles"!should!not!be!read!restrictively!to!require!that!the!baffles!in!each!case! must! serve! all! recited! functions.! ! In! this! case,! although!deflecting! projectiles! is! an! advantage! of! the! baffles,! it! is! not!required!by! the!patent! that! inward!extending!structures!always!be! capable! of! performing! that! function.! ! Accordingly,! the!disclosure!and!claims!of!the!'798!patent!would!not!be!interpreted!by!a!person!skilled!in!the!art!to!mean!that!a!structure!extending!inward!from!one!of!the!wall!faces!is!a!"baffle"!if!it!is!at!an!acute!or!obtuse!angle,!but!is!not!a!"baffle"!if!it!is!disposed!at!a!right!angle.!!Remanded.!!Discussion:!!This! case! has! resulted! in! limited! exclusive! reliance! on!dictionaries! as! an! "objective"! and! presumptive! source! for!meanings! of! claim! terms.! ! After! Phillips,! courts! may! still! use!dictionaries! along! with! the! specification,! especially! when! no!
included! evidence! exists! in! the! specification! regarding! a! term's!specialized!meaning,!but!the!specification!must!be!referenced!to!the!extent!possible.!!Markman#v#Westview#Instruments!!Brief!Fact!Summary:!!The! Petitioner,! Markman! (Petitioner),! brought! a! patent!infringement!suit!against!the!Respondent,!Westview!Instruments,!Inc.!(Respondent).!The!jury!interpreted!expert!witness!testimony!and! held! for! the! Petitioner.! The! Judge! directed! verdict! for! the!Respondent! stating! that! the! jury! interpreted! the! information!incorrectly.!!Synopsis!of!Rule!of!Law.! In!some!cases!where! it! is!unclear!as!to!whether!a!judge!or!jury!should!decide!upon!terms!of!art!in!a!case!that! is! traditionally! decided! by! a! jury,! precedent! states! that,!judges,! because! of! their! experience! may! be! more! capable! to!define!the!terms.!!Facts:!!The! Petitioner! in! this! infringement! suit! owned! a! patent! for! his!inventory! control! and! reporting! system! for! dry! cleaning! stores.!The!patent!described!a!system!that!could!monitor!and!report!the!status,! location! and! movement! of! clothing! in! a! dryRcleaning!establishment.! The! system! consisted! of! a! keyboard! and! data!processor! to! generate!written! records! for! each! transaction! and!included! a! bar! code! readable! by! optical! detectors! operated! by!employees!who!logged!the!progress!of!clothing!through!the!dryRcleaning! process.! The!Respondents! product,! the! Exponent,! also!included!a!keyboard!and!processor!and! it! listed! charges! for! the!dryRcleaning!services!on!barRcoded!tickets!that!could!be!read!by!portable! optical! detectors.! Petitioner! brought! an! infringement!suit! against! Respondent! and!Althon!Enterprises,! an! operator! of!dryRcleaning! establishments! using! Respondents! products.!Respondent!answered!that!Petitioners!patent!was!not! infringed!by! its! system! because! the! Respondents! system! functioned!merely!to!record!an!inventory!of!receivables!by!tracking!invoices!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
and! transaction! totals,! rather! than! recording! and! tracking! an!inventory!of!articles!of!clothing.!Part!of!the!dispute!hinged!upon!the!meaning!of! the!word!inventory.!A! jury!heard! the!case!and!heard! from! one! of! Petitioners! witness! who! testified! about! the!meaning!of!the!claim!language.!The!jury!compared!the!patent!to!Respondents! device! and! found! an! infringement! of! Petitioners!claim.! The! District! Court! nevertheless! granted! Respondents!deferred!motion!for!judgment!as!a!matter!of! law,!reasoning!that!the! term! inventory! in! Petitioners! patent! encompassed! both!cash! inventory! and! the! actual! physical! inventory! of! articles! of!clothing.! Since! Respondents! system! could! not! track! items! it!directed!a!verdict!on!the!ground!that!Respondents!device!did!not!have! the! means! to! maintain! an! inventory! total! and! could! not!detect! and! localize! additions! to! inventory! as! well! as! deletions!from!it!as!required!by!Petitioners!claim.!Petitioner!appealed!and!argued! that! the! District! Court! erred! in! substituting! its!construction! of! the! disputed! claim! term! inventory! for! the!construction! the! jury! had! given! it.! The! United! States! Court! of!Appeals! for! the! Federal! Circuit! affirmed,! holding! the!interpretation! of! claim! terms! to! be! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of!the! court! and! the! Seventh! Amendment! of! the! United! States!Constitution!(Constitution)!to!be!consistent!with!that!conclusion.!!Issue:!!Whether! the! interpretation! of! a! soRcalled! patent! claim,! the!portion! of! the! patent! document! that! defines! the! scope! of! the!patentees! rights,! is! a! matter! of! law! reserved! entirely! for! the!court,!or!subject! to!a!Seventh!Amendment!guarantee!that!a! jury!will! determine! the! meaning! of! any! disputed! term! of! art! about!which!expert!testimony!is!offered.!!Held:!!Construction!of!a!patent,!including!terms!of!art!within!its!claim,!is!exclusively! within! the! province! of! the! court.! Accordingly,! the!court!held!that!the!interpretation!of!the!word!inventory!in!this!case! was! an! issue! for! the! judge,! not! the! jury! and! affirmed! the!decision!of!the!Court!of!Appeals!for!the!Federal!Circuit.!
!Discussion:!!Part! of! the! dispute! hinged! upon! the! meaning! of! the! word!inventory!and!its!interpretation!by!the!jury!and!judge.!The!first!question! the! court!had! to! address!was!whether!historically,! the!cause!of!action!was!one!that!was!either!tried!at!law!or!in!equity.!If!a! question! of! law,! the! second! question! was! whether! the!particular!trial!decision!must!fall!to!the!jury!in!order!to!preserve!the!substance!of! the!commonRlaw!right!as! it!existed! in!1791.!As!for!the!first!question,!the!Court!compared!the!statutory!action!to!18thRcentury! actions! brought! in! the! courts! of! England! prior! to!the!merger! of! the! courts! of! law! and! equity.! It! found! that! since!patent!infringement!cases!were!historically!tried!at!law,!that!this!case!was!no!different.!The!second!question!was!the!more!difficult!one.! It! asked!whether!a!particular! issue!occurring!within!a! jury!trial! (here! the! construction! of! a! patent! claim)! was! itself!necessarily! a! jury! issue,! thereby! to! be! decided! by! a! jury.! But!when,!as!here,!history!provided!no!clear!answer.!The!Court!had!to!make!a!judgment!about!the!scope!of!the!Seventh!Amendment!of!the!Constitution!guarantee!based!on!existing!precedent.!Where!history! answered! no! questions,! precedent! allowed! functional!considerations! to! choose! whether! judges! or! juries! were! better!able!to!define!terms!of!art.!It!found!that!since!patent!construction!in!particular!was!a!special!occupation,!requiring!special!training!and! practice,! the! judge! due! to! his! training! and! discipline! was!more! likely! to! give! a! proper! interpretation! to! such! cases! than!would!a! jury.!Therefore! the! judge!was!more! likely! to!be!correct!and! accurate! in! performing! such! a! duty! than! a! jury! could! be!expected!to!be.!!!# #
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
17##I.#Assessors!!Frank#v#Benito!!Emergency!Recitation:!! FRANK! and! GOHN! had! a! US! patent! over! a! hempRstripping!machine!(with!a!distinct!feature!of!a!wooden!spindle)!which!they!also!had!duly!registered!in!the!Philippines.!! They! claim! that! BENITO! infringed! their! patent! when! he!manufactured! and! sold! substantially! the! same!machine! (with! a!similar! spindle! but! made! of! metal)! with! essentially! the! same!utility.! BENITO! claims! that! he! never! knew! of! the! patent,! never!intended!to!imitate!it,!and!his!spindle!was!more!efficient.!!ISSUE:!W/N!the!patent!was!infringed!!!YES!!FRANK!and!GOHNs!patent!is!the!spindle!upon!which!they!rely,!together!with!its!specified!manner!and!mode!of!operation,!and!in!the!final!analysis,!it!must!be! conceded! that! the! basic! principle! of! the! spindle! upon!which!the! BENITO! relies! is! founded! upon! the! basic! principle! of! the!spindle!for!which!FRANK!and!GOHN!have!a!patent.!!BENITO!contends! that! the!basic!principle!of! the!spindle!was!a!very! old! one! in!mechanics,! and! that! there!was! nothing! new! or!novel! in! the!application!of! it!by! the!plaintiffs.!Be! that!as! it!may,!the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! with! its!specifications!which!are!attached!to,!and!made!part!of,!the!patent,!and!the!proof!is!conclusive!that!the!defendant!is!infringing!upon!the!basic!principle!of!the!spindle!as!it!is!defined!and!specified!in!plaintiffs'!patent.!!FACTS:!!Patrick!Henry!FRANK!and!William!Henry!GOHN!were!owners!of!a!patent!covering!hempR!stripping! machine! No.! 1519579! issued! to! them! by! the! United!States!Patent!Office!of!December!16,!1924,!and!duly!registered!in!the!Bureau!of! Commerce! and! Industry!of! the!Philippine! Islands!under!the!provisions!of!Act!No.!2235!
!The!important!feature!of!the!machine!"is!a!spindle!upon!which!the!hemp!to!be!stripped!is!wound!in!the!process!of!stripping."!!Specifications!of!the!patent:!
o!1.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!a!supporting!portion!on!which!the! hemp! leaves! may! rest! and! having! also! an! upright!bracket! portion,! a! lever! of! angular! formation! pivotally!attached!substantially!at!the! juncture!of!the!arms!thereof!of!the!bracket!portion!of!the!stripping!head,!whereby!one!arm! of! the! lever! overlies! the! supporting! portion! of! the!stripping! head,! a! blade! carried! by! said! one! arm! of! the!lever! for! cooperating! with! said! supporting,! means!connected!with! the! other! arm!of! the! lever! and! actuating!the! latter! to! continously! urge! the! blade! toward! said!supporting!portion!of! the!stripping!head,!and!a! rotatable!spindle! positioned! adjacent! to! said! stripping! head,! said!spindle! being! adapted! to! be! engaged! by! hemp! leaves!extending!across!said!supporting!portion!of! the!stripping!head! underneath! said! blade! and! being! operable! to! draw!said!hemp!leaves!in!the!direction!of!their!length!between!said! supporting! portion! of! the! stripping! head! and! said!blade.!o!2.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!a! horizontal! table! portion,! a! rest! supported! upon! said!table!portion,! a! stripping!knife! supported!upon! the! table!for!movement! into!and!out!of!position! to!cooperate!with!the!rest!to!strip!hemp!leaves!drawn!between!the!knife!and!the!rest,!and!power!driven!means!adapted!to!be!engaged!with!said!hemp! leaves!and! to!pull! the! latter!between! the!knife! and! rest,! said! power! driven! means! including! a!rotating! spindle,! said! spindle! being! free! at! one! end! and!tapering!regularly!toward!its!free!end.!o!3.!In!a!hemp!stripping!machine,!a!stripping!head!having!a!horizontal!table!portion!and!an!upright!bracket!portion!a! rest! holder! adjustably! on! the! table! portion,! a! rest!resiliently!supported!by!the!holder,!a!knife!carrying!lever!of! angular! formation! and! being! pivotally! attached!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
substantially! at! the! juncture! of! the! arms! thereof! to! the!bracket!portion!of!the!stripping!head,!whereby!one!arm!of!the!lever!overlies!the!rest,!a!blade!adjustably!supported!on!said! one! arm,! for! cooperating!with! said! rest! and! gravity!means! connected! with! the! other! arm! of! the! lever! and!actuating!the!latter!to!continuously!urge!the!blade!toward!the!rest.!
! Essentially,! the! patent! claim! is! over! a! spindle!made! of!wood,!conical!in!shape!and!with!a!smooth!surface.!!Defendant!Constancio!BENITO,!on!the!other!hand,!had!a!spindle!somewhat! similar! in! shape,! but!was!made! of!metal!with! rough!surface.!BENITO!claims!his!spindle!was!more!effective!and!would!do!better!work!than!that!of!the!plaintiffs.!! BENITO! manufactured! a! hempRstripping! machine! in! which,!without!authority!from!the!plaintiffs,!he!has!embodied!and!used!such! spindles! and! their! method! of! application! and! use,! and! is!exhibiting!his!machine!to!the!public! for! the!purpose!of! inducing!its!purchase.!!Plaintiff!contend!that!the!BENITOs!machine!is!an!infringement!upon!the!patent!granted! the!plaintiffs,!and!plaintiffs!pray! for!an!injunction!that!the!defendant!be!required!to!account!to!plaintiffs!for!any!profits!he!may!have!made!by!reason!of!such!infringement,!and! for! a! temporary! injunction! restraining! him! in! the!manufacture!of!other!machines!of!the!same!kind!of!its!exhibition,!and! that! upon! the! final! hearing,! the! injunction! be! made!permanent.!!BENITO!demurred! to! the! complaint!upon! the! ground! that! the!facts!alleged!therein!do!not!constitute!a!cause!of!action,!that!it!is!ambiguous! and! vague,! and! that! it! was! error! to! make! William!Henry!Gohn!plaintiff!!Demurrer!was!overruled!and!BENITO!filed!an!answer!stating:!
o!He!never!had!knowledge!of! any! supposed! invention!of!the!plaintiffs!of!whatever!kind!of!hempRstripping!machine!o!He!never!intended!to!imitate!the!unknown!invention!of!the!plaintiffs!
o! That! the! hempRstripping! machine! of! the! plaintiffs,!known!as!"La!Constancia,"!patent!of!which! is! duly! registered,! has! its! characteristics! and!original! invention! belonging! to! the! defendant! which!consist!of!two!pinions!with!horizontal!grooves!which!form!the!tool! for!extracting!the! fibers!between!a!straight!knife!upon!another!which!is!cylindrical!and!provided!with!teeth!and! on! the! center! of! said! two! pinions! there! is! a! flying!wheel!its!transmission!belt!connecting!it!with!the!motor.!
!The!lower!court!rendered!judgment!in!legal!effect!granting!the!plaintiffs! the! injunction! prayed! for! in! their! complaint,! and!absolving! them! from! defendant's! counterclaim,! and! judgment!against!the!defendant!for!costs.!!BENITO!appeals! and! contends! that! the! court! erred! in!holding!the! same! spindles! used! by! the! parties! in! this! case,! though!different! in! material! and! form,! have! the! same! utility! and!efficiency!and!that!they!are!the!same,!and!in!finding!that!spindles!used!by!the!defendant!are!an!imitation!of!those!of!the!plaintiffs,!and! in! finding! that! the! defendant! infringed! upon! plaintiffs'!patent,! and! in! not! rendering! judgment! against! the! plaintiffs,!requiring! them! to! pay! defendant! P5,000! as! damages,! and! in!enjoining!the!appellant!from!the!manufacture,!use!and!sale!of!this!hempRstripping!machine.!!ISSUE:!W/N!the!Plaintiffs!patent!was!infringed!YES!!HELD:!The!judgment!of!the!lower!court!is!affirmed,!with!costs.!So!ordered.!!!RA!TIO:!Rule!of!Evidence:!The!burden!of!proof!to!substantiate!a!charge!of!infringement! is!with! the! plaintiff.!Where,! however,! the! plaintiff!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!Commissioner!of!Patents!in!granting!the!patent!is!always! presumed! to! be! correct.! The! burden! the! shifts! to! the!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
defendant! to! overcome! by! competent! evidence! this! legal!presumption.!!Be! that!as! it!may,! the!plaintiffs!have!a!patent! for! their!machine,!and!the!defendant!does!not!have!a!patent,!and!the!basic!principle!of!plaintiffs'!patent!is!the!spindle!upon!which!they!rely,!together!with!its!specified!manner!and!mode!of!operation,!and!in!the!final!analysis,! it! must! be! conceded! that! the! basic! principle! of! the!spindle! upon! which! the! defendant! relies! is! founded! upon! the!basic! principle! of! the! spindle! for! which! the! plaintiffs! have! a!patent.!!Assuming,! without! deciding,! that! the! defendant's! spindle! is! an!improvement! upon! and! is! a! better! spindle! than! that! of! the!plaintiffs,!yet,!under!the!authority!above!cited,!the!defendant!had!no! legal!right! to!appropriate! the!basic!principle!upon!which! the!plaintiffs! obtained! their! patent.! The! plaintiffs! having! obtained!their!patent,!which!was!duly!registered!in!the!Philippines!Islands,!the!defendant!cannot!infringe!upon!its!basic!principle.!!The! defendant! contends! that! the! basic! principle! of! the! spindle!was!a!very!old!one!in!mechanics,!and!that!there!was!nothing!new!or!novel!in!the!application!of!it!by!the!plaintiffs.!Be!that!as!it!may,!the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! with! its!specifications!which!are!attached!to,!and!made!part!of,!the!patent,!and!the!proof!is!conclusive!that!the!defendant!is!infringing!upon!the!basic!principle!of!the!spindle!as!it!is!defined!and!specified!in!plaintiffs'!patent.!!Frank#v#Kosuyama!!Facts:!The! case! involves! a! patent! on! improvement! in! hemp! stripping!machines,! issued! by! the! US! PATENT!OFFICE,! but! registered! in!the!BUREAU!OF!COMMERCE!AND!INDUSTRY!of!the!Philippines.!!
Frank! and! Gohn! filed! a! case! against! Kosuyama.! They! asked! for!the!following:!1.!that!Kosuyama!be!ordered!to!refrain!from!manufacturing!and!selling!machines!similar!to!their!patent!2.!render!an!accounting!for!all!the!profits!from!his!machine!sales,!or,! in! the!alternative,! to!pay!P60!as!profit!on!each!machine!sold!by!him!3.!that!he!pay!costs!and!damages!against!Frank!and!Gohn.!!In! spite! of! the! fact! that! they! filed! an! amended! complaint! from!which! the! spindle! or! conical! drum,! which! was! the! only!characteristic! feature! of! the!machine!mentioned! in! the! original!complaint,! was! eliminated,! the! plaintiffs! insisted! that! the! said!part!constitutes!the!essential!difference!between!the!machine!in!question! and! other! machines! and! that! it! was! the! principal!consideration!upon!which!their!patent!was!issued.!!The!TRIAL!COURT!analyzed!each!of!the!parts!of!the!machines!and!came!up!with! the!conclusion! that!Frank!and!Gohn!merely!made!minor!improvements!on!machines!already!in!use!at!the!time:!!It!cannot!be!said!that!they!have!invented!the!spindle!inasmuch!as!this!was!already!known!since!the!year!1909!or!1910.!! Neither! can! it! be! said! that! they! have! invented! the! stripping!knife! and! the! contrivance! which! controls! the! movement! and!pressure! thereof! on! the! ground! that! stripping! knives! together!with!their!control!sets!were!already!in!actual!use!in!the!different!stripping!machines!long!before!their!machine!appeared.!!Neither!can! it!be!said! that! they! invented! the! flywheel!because!that! part! or! piece! thereof,! so! essential! in! every! machine! from!time! immemorial,!was!already!known!and!actually! employed! in!hemp!stripping!machines.!!Much!less!can!it!be!said!that!they!invented!the!pedal!to!raise!the!knife!in!order!to!allow!the!hemp!to!be!stripped!to!pass!under!it,!on!the!ground!that!the!use!of!such!contrivance!has,!likewise,!been!known! since! the! invention! of! the! most! primitive! of! hemp!stripping!machines!!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
Issue:!1.!Did!Kosuyama!infringe!on!the!patent?!!Held/Ratio:!1.!The!SC!agrees!with!the!trial!court,! that,!strictly!speaking,!the!hemp! stripping!machine! of! the! plaintiffs! does! not! constitute! an!invention! on! the! ground! that! it! lacks! the! elements! of! novelty,!originality! and! precedence.! Thus,! Kosuyama! cannot! be! held!civilly!liable!for!alleged!infringement!of!the!patent!as!there!is!no!essential! part! of! the! machine! manufactured! and! sold! by! him,!which!was!unknown!to!the!public!in!the!Province!of!Davao!at!the!time! the! plaintiffs! applied! for! and! obtained! their! patent! for!improved!hemp!stripping!machines.!!OTHER!NOTES!Frank! and! Gohn! relied! on! an! earlier! case! involving! their! same!patent,! but! against! another! defendant,! in!which! the! SC! ruled! in!their! favor.!The!SC!said! that! the! former!case!was!not!applicable!because! Kosuyama,! in! this! latter! case,! alleged! different! special!defenses.!Moreover,!in!the!earlier!case,!the!decision!relied!on!the!presence! of! the! spindle! element! of! the! machine! which! was!copied! by! the! earlier! defendant.! However,! in! this! case,! it! was!discovered! that! the! spindle! is! not! even! an! integral! part! of! the!machine,! and! that! it! was! even! eliminated! from! the! patent!application,!as!shown!by!evidence!presented!during!the!trial.!!!G.#Sell#vs.#Yap#Jue,#12#Phil.#519!!Facts:!The!plaintiff,!Henry!Gsell,!was!able!to!establish!his!title!to!a!valid!patent! covering! the! manufacture! of! curved! handles! for! canes,!parasols,! and! umbrellas.! Thus,! the! court! granted! a! perpetual!injunction! restraining! defendant! from!manufacturing! canes! and!umbrellas!with!a!curved!handle!by!means!of!a!lamp!or!blowpipe!fed!with!mineral!oil!or!petroleum,!since!that!process!was!already!covered!by!the!patent.!
!The!patent!of!Gsell!is!for!the!industrial!product!"cane!handles!for!walking!sticks!and!umbrellas,!curved!by!means!of!a!small!lamp!or!blowpipe,!fed!by!petroleum!or!mineral!fuel."!!Process:!After! the!canes!have!been!cut! for!cane!or!umbrella!handles,! the!outsides! are! thoroughly! cleaned.! This! operation! having! been!performed,! they! are! then! trimmed! and! the! interior! cleaned! by!means!of!a!gimlet!of!about!15!centimeters!in!length!operated!by!a!wheel,!by!means!of!which! the!knots! inside!are!broken.!There! is!then! introduced! to! a! depth! of! about! 15! centimeters! a! piece! of!very!clean!bamboo,!which!completely! fills! the!hole!made!by! the!gimlet,!thereby!giving!to!the!cane!the!necessary!strength!to!resist!the!heat!of!the!lamp!or!blowpipe!without!breaking!or!cracking.!!Despite! the! court! order,! defendant! still! proceeded! to!manufacture! curved! cane! handled! for! walking! sticks! and!umbrellas! by! a! process! identical! to! that! covered! by! the! patent,!except! that! he! substituted! for! a! lamp! fed! with! petroleum! or!mineral! oil,! lamp! fed!with! alcohol.! So! Gsell! instituted! contempt!proceedings! against! defendant! for! disobeying! the! order! of! the!court.!The! trial! court! ruled! that! the!act!was!not! contrary! to! the!precise! terms! of! the! prohibition! since! the! defendant! used! an!alcoholRburning! lamp! instead! of! a! coal! or! mineral! oilRburning!lamp.!It!was!held!that!defendant!was!not!guilty!of!contempt!since!Gsell!failed!to!prove!the!facts.!But! the! defendant! still! continued! to! use! the! patented! process!with!the!substitution!of!the!mineralRoil!burning!lamp!for!a! lamp!fed!by!alcohol.!!Issue:!1.! W/N! there! was! infringement! of! Gsells! patent! when! the!defendant!substituted!alcohol!for!petroleum!or!mineral!oil!!Held/Ratio:!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
1.!YES.!Gsell!has!established!the!existence!of! two! facts:! (1)!That!the! use! of! the! lamp! fed! with! petroleum! or! mineral! oil! was! an!unessential!part!of!the!patented!process!the!use!of!which!by!the!defendant! was! prohibited! by! the! said! judgment;! and! (2)! that!alcohol! is! an! equivalent! and! proper! substitute,! well! known! as!such,! for! mineral! oil! or! petroleum! in! connection! with! the! said!process.!!It!was!clearly!proven!at!the!trial,!that!kerosene!and!alcohol!blast!lamps!are!agencies!for!producing!and!applying!heat,!well!known!throughout!the!world!long!prior!to!1906,!the!date!of!the!issue!of!the!patent;!that!it!is!and!for!many!years!has!been!known!that!one!may!for!all!ordinary!purposes!be!used!in!the!place!of!the!other.!!It! is! true! that!defendant's!blast! lamp! is! fed!with!alcohol,!and! its!shape! varies! in! unimportant! details,! for! the! purpose! of!accommodating! the!principle,! by!which! the! flame! is! secured,! to!the!different!physical!and!chemical!composition!of!the!fuel!used!therein;! but! the! principle! on! which! it! works,! its! mode! of!application,! and! its! general! design! distinguish! it! in! no! essential!particular!from!that!used!by!the!plaintiff.!!The! doctrine! of! mechanical! equivalents! was! also! invoked! by!Gsell! and! the! Court! ruled! that! it! is! applicable! in! this! case.! The!doctrine!may!properly! be! invoked! to!protect! the!patentee! from!colorable! invasions!of!his!patent!under! the!guise!of!substitution!of! some! part! of! his! invention! by! some! well! known!mechanical!equivalent.!As! quoted! by! the! Court! from! a! U.S.! case:! the! inventor! of! an!ordinary!machine! is,! by! his! letters! patent,! protected! against! all!mere! formal! alterations! and! against! the! substitution! of! mere!mechanical! equivalents.!Why! should! not! the! inventor! of! a! new!combination!receive!the!same!protection?!If!he!can!not,!then!will!his!patent!not!be!worth!the!parchment!on!which!it!is!written.!!No!one!infringes!a!patent!for!a!combination!who!does!not!employ!all!of!the!ingredients!of!the!combination;!but!if!he!employs!all!the!
ingredients,!or!adopts!mere!formal!alterations,!or!substitutes,!for!one!ingredient!another!which!was!well!known!at!the!date!of!the!patent!as!a!proper!substitute! for! the!one!withdrawn,!and!which!performs!substantially!the!same!function!as!the!one!withdrawn,!he!does!infringe.!!An!alteration!in!a!patented!combination!which!merely!substitutes!another!old!ingredient!for!one!of!the!ingredients!in!the!patented!combination,! is! an! infringement! of! the! patent,! if! the! substitute!performs! the! same! function! and!was!well! known!at! the!date! of!the!patent!as!a!proper!substitute!for!the!omitted!ingredient.!!Maguan#v#CA!!Doctrine:!! SEC.! 9.! Invention! not! considered! new! or! patentable.! ! An!invention! shall! not! be! considered! new! or! capable! of! being!patented:!!a.!If!it!was!known!or!used!by!others!in!the!Philippines!before!the!invention! thereof! by! the! inventor! named! in! an! application! for!patent!for!the!invention;!or!!b.!If!it!was!patented!or!described!in!any!printed!publication!in!the!Philippines!or!any!foreign!country!more!than!one!year!before!the!application!for!a!patent!therefor;!or!!c.! If! it! had! been! in! public! use! or! on! sale! in! the! Philippines! for!more!than!one!year!before!the!application!for!a!patent!therefor;!or!!d.! If! it! is! the! subject! matter! of! a! validly! issued! patent! in! the!Philippines!granted!on!an!application!filed!before!the!filing!of!the!application!for!patent!therefor.!!Facts:!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
Petitioner! Rosario! Maguan! is! doing! business! under! Swan!Manufacturing! and! is! a! patent! holder! of! powder! puff.3! In! a!letter,!petitioner!informed!private!respondent!Luchan!(of!Susana!Luchan!Powder!Puff!Manufacturing)!that!the!powder!puff!it!was!manufacturing! and! selling,! particularly! those! to! the! cosmetics!industry,!resemble!were!identical!or!substantially!identical!to!the!powder! puff! petitioner! had! patented! therefore! the! production!and!sale!of!the!same!by!the!latter!constituted!infringement.!In!her!defense,!respondent!stated!the! following:!First,! that!her!powder!puff!was!different;!second,!that!the!petitioners!patents!were!void!because! the! utility! models! applied! for! were! not! new! and!patentable,! and! lastly,! that! the! person! to!whom! the! patent!was!issued! was! not! the! true! and! actual! owner! nor! were! her! rights!derived! from! that! author.! Specifically,! respondent! further!alleged:!!a.!Years!prior!to!the!application!for!the!patents,!powder!puffs!of!that!kind!already!existed!and!publicly!sold!in!the!market!both!in!the!Philippines!and!abroad!!b.! Applicants! claim! for! the! construction! or! process! of!manufacturing! the! utility! models! were! but! a! complicated! and!impractical! version! of! an! old! simple! one! which! has! been! well!known! in! the! cosmetics! industry! (as! early! as! 1963)! thereby!belonging!to!no!one!except!the!general!public.!!Hence,! petitioner! filed! a! complaint! for! damages!with! injunction!and! preliminary! injunction.! The! trial! court! granted! the! writs!prayed! for.!Upon!petition! for! certiorari,! the! CA! issued! a!writ! of!preliminary!injunction!enjoining!the!orders!of!the!trial!court!but!subsequently!dismissed!the!case!for!lack!of!merit!(issue!decided!was!only!whether!the!court!acted!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion,!not!on!whether! the!patents!had!been! infringed).!However!upon!reconsideration,!injunction!was!granted.!!Issues:!
1.!W/N!in!an!action!for!infringement!the!court!had!jurisdiction!to!determine! the! invalidity!of! the!patents!at! issue!which! invalidity!was!still!pending!in!consideration!in!the!Patent!Office!2.! W/N! the! court! committed! grave! abuse! of! discretion! in! the!issuance!of!the!writ!of!preliminary!injunction!3.!W/N!certiorari!was!the!proper!remedy!!Held/Ratio:!1.!YES.!When!a!patent! is!sought!to!be!enforced,!the!questions!of!invention,!novelty!or!prior!use,!are!open!to!judicial!examination.!Under! the!Patent!Law,! the! trial! court!has! jurisdiction! to!declare!patents! in! question! invalid.! A! patentee! shall! have! the! exclusive!right!to!make,!use!and!sell!the!patented!article!or!product!and!the!making,!using,!or!selling!by!any!person!without!the!authorization!of! the! patentee! constitutes! infringement! of! the! patent! (Sec.! 37,!R.A.! 165).!Any!patentee!whose! rights!have!been! infringed!upon!may! bring! an! action! before! the! proper! CFI! now! (RTC)! and! to!secure!an!injunction!for!the!protection!of!his!rights!(Sec.!42,!R.A.!165).! Under! Sec.! 46! of! the! same! law,! if! the! Court! shall! find! the!patent! or! any! claim! thereof! invalid,! the! Director! shall! on!certification!of!the!final!judgment!...!issue!an!order!cancelling!the!patent! or! the! claims! found! invalid! and! shall! publish! a! notice!thereof! in! the! Official! Gazette.! Upon! such! certification,! it! is!ministerial! on! the! part! of! the! patent! office! to! execute! the!judgment!!2.!YES.!The!validity!of!petitioners!patents!is!in!question!for!want!of!novelty.!Trial!court!committed!grave!abuse!of!discretion!when!it! failed! to!determine!the!validity!of! the!patents!before! issuance!of! the! writ.! For! an! injunction! to! issue,! 2! requisites! must! be!satisfied:! First,! the! existence! of! the! right! to! be! protected! and!second,!the!violation!of!said!right.!!The!burden!of!proof! to! substantiate! a! charge!of! infringement! is!with!the!plaintiff.!But!where!the!plaintiff!introduces!the!patent!in!evidence,! and! the! same! is! in!due! form,! there! is! created!a!prima!facie!presumption!of!its!correctness!and!validity.!The!decision!of!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
the!Director! of! Patent! in! granting! the!patent! is! presumed! to! be!correct.!The!burden!of!going!forward!with!the!evidence!(burden!of! evidence)! then! shifts! to! the! defendant! to! overcome! by!competent!evidence!this!legal!presumption!!After! review!of!64!exhibits! and!oral! testimonies!of!5!witnesses,!there! is! a!prima! facie! showing!of! a! fair!question!of! invalidity!of!petitioners! patents! on! the! ground! of! lack! of! novelty.! The!evidence!appeared!not!to!have!been!considered!at!all!by!the!court!a!quo!for!alleged!lack!of!jurisdiction,!on!the!mistaken!notion!that!such! question! in!within! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of! the! patent!office.! An! invention! must! possess! the! essential! elements! of!novelty,! originality! and! precedence! and! for! the! patentee! to! be!entitled! to! protection;! the! invention!must! be! new! to! the!world.!Accordingly,!a!single!instance!of!public!use!of!the!invention!by!a!patentee! for!more! than! two!years! (now! for!more! than!one!year!only! under! Sec.! 9! of! the! Patent! Law)! before! the! date! of! his!application!for!his!patent!will!be!fatal!to,!the!validity!of!the!patent!when!issued.!!Under!American!Law!from!which!our!Patent!Law!was!derived!it!is!generally!held!that!in!patent!cases!a!preliminary!injunction!will!not!issue!for!patent!infringement!unless!the!validity!of!the!patent!is! clear! and! beyond! question.! The! issuance! of! letters! patent,!standing!alone,! is!not!sufficient!to!support!such!drastic!relief.! In!cases!of!infringement!of!patent!no!preliminary!injunction!will!be!granted!unless!the!patent!is!valid!and!infringed!beyond!question!and!the!record!conclusively!proves!the!defense!is!sham.!!3.!YES.!For!an!injunction!to!issue,!2!requisites!must!be!satisfied:!First,! the!existence!of! the! right! to!be!protected,!and!second,! the!violation! of! said! right.! In! this! case,! the! injunctive! order! is! so!general!that!the!petitioner!may!be!totally!barred!from!the!sale!of!any! kind! of! powder! puff.! Under! the! circumstances,! ordinary!appeal!is!inadequate.!In!the!past,!the!Court!has!recognized!that!a!petition! for!certiorari!may!be!applied! for!by! the!proper!petition!notwithstanding!the!existence!of!the!regular!remedy!of!an!appeal!
when! among! other! reasons,! the! broader! interests! of! justice! so!require!or!an!ordinary!appeal!is!not!an!adequate!remedy.!!Godines#vs.#CA,##226#SCRA#338!!Doctrine:!!according!to!the!doctrine!of!equivalents,!(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.!!Facts:!!Villaruz!had!a!patent.!It!covers!a!utility!model!for!a!hand!tractor!or!power!tiller.!!!The!above!mentioned!patent!was!acquired!by!SVRAgro!Industries!Enterprises,! Inc.,! herein! private! respondent.! On! October! 31,!1979,!SVRAgro!Industries!caused!the!publication!of!the!patent!in!a!newspaper!of!general!circulation.!!In! accordance!with! the! patent,! SVRArgo!manufactured! and! sold!the!patented!power!tillers.!In!1979,!SVRAgro!Industries!suffered!a!decline!of!more!than!50%!in!sales! in! its!Molave,!Zamboanga!del!Sur! branch.! Upon! investigation,! it! discovered! that! power! tillers!similar! to! those!patented!were!being!manufactured!and!sold!by!Godines! (petitioner).! Consequently,! SVRArgo! notified! Godines!about! the! existing! patent! and! demanded! that! the! latter! stop!selling!and!manufacturing!similar!power!tillers.!Upon!petitioner's!failure! to! comply! with! the! demand,! SVRAgro! Industries! filed!before!the!RTC!a!complaint!for!infringement!of!patent!and!unfair!competition.!!Godines!defense!was!that!the!hand!tractors!that!he!made!by!him!were!different.!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
!SVR!Argo!won!in!the!RTC!and!CA!!!Issue:!1.!W/N!there!was!infringement?!!!Held/Ratio:!1.! Yes,! Tests! have! been! established! to! determine! infringement.!These! are! (a)! literal! infringement;! and! (b)! the! doctrine! of!equivalents.! In! using! literal! infringement! as! a! test,! ".! .! .! resort!must! be! had,! in! the! first! instance,! to! the!words! of! the! claim.! If!accused! matter! clearly! falls! within! the! claim,! infringement! is!made!out!and!that!is!the!end!of!it."!!Samples!of!the!Godines!floating!power!tiller!have!been!produced!and! inspected! by! the! trial! court! and! compared!with! that! of! the!turtle!power!tiller!of!SVRArgo.! In!appearance!and!form,!both!the!floating!power!tillers!of!the!defendant!and!the!turtle!power!tiller!of!the!plaintiff!are!virtually!the!same.11!!Also!according! to! the!doctrine!of!equivalents,! (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.!The!reason!for!the!doctrine!of!equivalents!is!that!to! permit! the! imitation! of! a! patented! invention!which! does! not!copy!any! literal!detail!would!be!to!convert! the!protection!of! the!patent!grant!into!a!hollow!and!useless!thing.!In!this!case,!the!trial!court!observed!that,!between!the!two!power!tillers! operate! on! the! same! fundamental! principles.! And! it! is!sufficient!to!constitute!equivalency!that!the!same!function!can!be!performed! in! substantially! the! same!way! or!manner,! or! by! the!same!or! substantially! the!same,!principle!or!mode!of!operation;!but!where! these! tests! are! satisfied,!mere!differences! of! form!or!name!are!immaterial.!!
Also!to!establish!an!infringement,!it!is!not!essential!to!show!that!the!defendant!adopted!the!device!or!process!in!every!particular;!Proof! of! an! adoption! of! the! substance! of! the! thing! will! be!sufficient.!"In!one!sense,"!said!Justice!Brown,!"it!may!be!said!that!no! device! can! be! adjudged! an! infringement! that! does! not!substantially! correspond! with! the! patent.! But! another!construction,!which!would!limit!these!words!to!exact!mechanism!described! in! the! patent,! would! be! so! obviously! unjust! that! no!court!could!be!expected!to!adopt!it.!!EXTRA! INFO:! The! court! refused! Godines! defense! that! he! only!made!hand! tractors!based!on! the!specifications!of! the!customer!(ala! contractor),! because! as! observed! by! the!RTC!Godines! own!answer!admitted!manufacturing!the!hand!tractors,!plus!it!highly!unlikely!that!Godines!built!hand!tractors!based!on!the!customers!verbal! instruction! only,! without! written! instructions.! Also! SVRArgos!hand!tractor!were!called!turtle!power!tiller!while!Godines!was!floating!power!tiller.!Also!the!case!is!really!short.!!Del#Rosario#vs.#CA,#255#SCRA#152!!Doctrines:!!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.!!Where!a!party!introduces!the!patent!in!evidence,! if! it! is! in!due!form,!it!affords!a!prima!facie!presumption!of!its!correctness!and!validitythe!decision!of! the!Director! of! Patents! in! granting! the!patent! is! always! presumed! to! be! correct,! and! the! burden! then!shifts! to! the! other! party! to! overcome! this! presumption! by!competent!evidence.!! A! utility! model! shall! not! be! considered! new! if! before! the!application! for! a! patent! it! has! been! publicly! known! or! publicly!used! in! this! country! or! has! been! described! in! a! printed!publication!or!publications!circulated!within!the!country,!or! if! it!is!substantially!similar!to!any!other!utility!model!so!known,!used!or!described!within!the!country.!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
!A!patentee!shall!have!the!exclusive!right!to!make,!use!and!sell!the! patented! machine,! article! or! product! for! the! purpose! of!industry!or!commerce,!throughout!the!territory!of!the!Philippines!for! the! term!of! the!patent,! and!such!making,!using!or! selling!by!any! person! without! authorization! of! the! patentee! constitutes!infringement!of!his!patent.!!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.!!Facts:!On!18! January!1993,!Roberto!del!Rosario! (Petitioner),!holder!of!two! Letters! Patent! dated! 1983! and! 1986! for! audio! equipment!commonly! known! as! the! singRalong! system! or! karaoke,! filed! a!complaint! for! patent! infringement! against! Janito! Corporation!(Respondent).!Respondent!allegedly!manufactured!and!sold!singRalong! systems! bearing! the! trademark! miyata! or! miyata!karaoke! substantially! similar! if! not! identical! to! the! singRalong!system!covered!by!the!patents.!!Petitioner!sought!the!issuance!of!a!writ!of!preliminary!injunction,!which! the! trial! court! granted.! However,! the! Court! of! Appeals!reversed,! saying! there! was! no! infringement! of! the! patents,!reasoning! that! the! karaoke! system! was! a! universal! product!manufactured,!advertised,!and!marketed!in!most!countries!of!the!world! long! before! the! Petitioners! patents! were! issued.! Hence,!Petitioner!went!to!the!SC.!!Issue:!1.!Is!the!petitioner!entitled!to!the!writ!of!preliminary!injunction?!!Held/Ratio:!1.! YES.! There! are! only! two! requisites! to! be! satisfied! for! an!injunction! to! issue,! namely,! the! existence! of! a! right! to! be!protected,!and!that!the!facts!against!which!the!injunction!is!to!be!directed!are!violative!of!said!right.!
!In!this!case,!Petitioner!is!shown!to!be!a!holder!of!Letters!Patents!for! utility! models.! In! the! issuance! of! patents,! 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.!Where!the!Letters!Patent!are!introduced!in!evidence!and!are!in!due!form,!it!affords!a! prima! facie! presumption! of! its! correctness! and! validity.! The!decision! of! the! Director! is! presumed! correct,! and! the! burden!shifts!to!the!respondent!to!overcome!such!presumption.!!Under! the! [then]! Patent! Law,! a! utility! model! shall! not! be!considered! new! if! before! the! application! for! a! patent,! it! has!been!publicly!known!or!publicly!used!in!this!country!or!has!been!described! in! a! printed! publication! or! publications! circulated!within! the! country,! or! if! it! is! substantially! similar! to! any! other!utility! model! so! known,! used,! or! described! within! the! country.!Respondent! failed! to! present! evidence! to! show! that! the! utility!models! covered! by! Petitioners! patents! were! not! new.! The!witness!stated!in!court!that!there!were!a!lot!of!singRalong!systems!sold! prior! to! the! patents,! but! his! testimony! was! destroyed! on!cross! examination! upon! showing! that! the! alleged! dates! when!they! were! supposedly! sold! publicly! were! all! inaccurate! or!fabricated,!and!no!other!evidence!was!presented!to!back!up!such!claims.!!The! rights! of! the! Petitioner! have! been! sufficiently! established.!Petitioner!as!patentee!shall!have!the!exclusive!right!to!make,!use,!and!sell!the!patented!machine,!article,!or!product!for!the!purpose!of! industry! or! commerce,! throughout! the! territory! of! the!Philippines!for!the!term!of!the!patent,!and!such!making,!using,!or!selling! by! any! person! without! authorization! of! the! patentee!constitutes! patent! infringement.! Petitioner! likewise! established!that!Respondent!was!manufacturing!a!similar!singRalong!system!which!infringed!Petitioners!patented!models.!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
-
!While! Respondent! tried! to! show! the! differences! between! its!miyata!equipment!and!petitioners!products,!Respondent!merely!focused! on! the! differences! with! the! first! patent,! ignoring! the!second,!which!was!an!improvement!of!the!first.!It!was!shown!that!Respondents!equipment! involved!substantially! the!same!modes!or!operation!and!produce!substantially! the!same! if!not! identical!results! when! used.! Respondent! likewise! did! not! present! a!comparison!of!his!own!and!Petitioners!equipment!to!refute!such!finding.!!Thus,!the!issuance!of!a!writ!of!preliminary!injunction!is!justified.!
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco
Jesse Tantoco