You are on page 1of 3

Vargas V.

Chua

Facts:

 Angel Vargas, plaintiff, is the registered owner and possessor of United States Patent No.
1,507,530 on certain plow improvements, a certified copy of which was registered in the Bureau
of Commerce and industry of the Government of the Philippine Islands on October 17, 1924.
 After the issuance of his patent, plaintiff has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of plows
of the kind, type and design covered by Patent 1,507,530, said plows being of different sizes.
 Since the filing of the complaint to date, the defendant, Petronila Chua, has been manufacturing
and selling plows of the kind, type and design of different sizes.
 Defendant Coo Teng Hee has been obtaining his plows of the same form and size from
defendant Petronila Chua while defendant Cham Samco & Sons bought from the former plows
of the form, type and design which it has been selling in its store on Sto. Cristo Street, Manila.
 On December 20, 1927, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant, Coo Kun & Sons Hardware
Co., that the plows manufactured by the plaintiff in accordance with his patent are commonly
known to the trade in Iloilo, as well as in other parts of the Philippines, as "Arados Vargas", and
that the plaintiff is the sole manufacturer of said plows.

Issue: Whether or not the plow constitutes a real invention or an improvement for which a patent may
be obtained.

HELD: No. petitioner is not entitled to the protection he seeks for the simple reason that his plow does
not constitute an invention in the legal sense, and because, according to the evidence, the same type of
plows had been manufactured in this country and had been in use in many parts of the Philippine
Archipelago, especially in the Province of Iloilo, long before he obtained his last patent.

As said by the United States Supreme Court, "it has been repeatedly held by this court that a single
instance of public use of the invention by a patentee of more than two years before the date of his
application for his patent will be fatal to the validity of the patent when issued."
Aguas V. De Leon

Facts:

Respondent Conrado de Leon filed a complaint for infringement of patent against petitioner
Domiciano Aguas and F.H. Aquino and Sons alleging among others that being the original first and sole
inventor of certain new and useful improvements in the process of making mosaic pre-cast tiles, he
lawfully filed and prosecuted an application for Philippine patent, and thereafter lawfully acquired from
the Philippine Patent Office, Patent No. 658.

Petitioner allegedly infringed the same by making, using and selling tiles embodying said patent
invention. A writ of Preliminary Injunction was subsequently issued.

In his answer, petitioner denied the allegations and instead averred inter alia that respondent
De Leon is neither the original first nor sole inventor of the improvements in the process of making
mosaic pre-cast tiles, the same having been used by several tile-making factories both here and abroad
years before the alleged invention by De Leon; hence, it is not patentable.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals, upon appeal rendered judgment in favor of respondent
de Leon. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged invention or discovery of respondent is patentable.

HELD: Yes. It should be noted that the private respondent does not claim to be the discoverer or
inventor of the old process of tile-making. He only claims to have introduced an improvement of said
process. In fact, Letters Patent No. 658 was issued by the Philippine Patent Office to the private
respondent Conrado G. De Leon, to protect his rights as the inventor of “ an alleged new and useful
improvement in the process of making pre-cast tiles.”

Indeed, section 7, Republic Act No. 165, as amended provides: “ Any invention of a new and useful
machine, manufactured product or substance, process, or an improvement of the foregoing, shall be
patentable.”
Maguan V. Honorable Court of Appeals

Facts:

Petitioner is doing business under the firm name and style of SWAN MANUFACTURING" while
private respondent is likewise doing business under the firm name and style of "SUSANA LUCHAN
POWDER PUFF MANUFACTURING."

On July 10, 1974 ,petitioner informed private respondent that the powder puffs the latter is
manufacturing and selling to various enterprises particularly those in the cosmetics industry, resemble
Identical or substantially Identical powder puffs of which the former is a patent holder under
Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109.

Petitioner explained such production and sale constitute infringement of said patents and therefore
its immediate discontinuance is demanded, otherwise it will be compelled to take judicial action.

Private respondent replied stating that her products are different and countered that petitioner's
patents are void because the utility models applied for were not new and patentable and the person to
whom the patents were issued was not the true and actual author nor were her rights derived from such
author.

Issue: Whether or not the alleged invention or discovery of respondent is patentable.

Held: No. After a careful review of the evidence, respondent Court of Appeals was satisfied that there is
a prima facie showing of a fair question of invalidity of petitioner's patents on the ground of lack of
novelty.

It has been repeatedly held that 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 one
year, 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.

You might also like