ATENTS: DIGESTSp low ove r two yea r s p r i o r t o t he app l i c a t i on fo r a pa t en t .Such be ing t he ca se , a l t hough on a d i f f e r en t g round , we m u s t s u s t a i n t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t , w i t h o u t p re jud i ce t o t he de t e rmina t i on o f t he damages r e su l t i ng f rom the g r an t i ng o f t he i n junc t i on , w i th t he cos t s o f t h i s instance against the appellant. So ordered.FRANK v KOSUYAMA59 PHIL 206FACTS:P a t e n t o n i m p r o v e m e n t i n h e m p s t r i p p i n g mach ine s , i s sued by t he Un i t ed S t a t e s Pa t en t Off i c e and registered in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of thePh i l i pp ine , was t he o r i g in o f t h i s a c t i on b rough t by t he plaintiffs herein who prayed that the judgment be renderedaga in s t t he de f endan t , o rde r i ng h im the r eby t o r e f r a in immediately from the manufacture and sale of machiness i m i l a r t o t h e o n e c o v e r e d b y t h e p a t e n t : t o r e n d e r a n accounting of the profits realized from the manufacture andsale of the machines in question; that in case of refusal orf a i l u r e t o r e n d e r s u c h a c c o u n t i n g , t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e o rde red t o pay t he p l a in t i f f s t he sum o f P60 a s p ro f i t oneach mach ine manufac tu r ed o r so ld by h im; t ha t upon approval of the required bond, said defendant be restrainedfrom continuing the manufacture and sale of the same kindof machines; that after the trial the preliminary injunctionissued therein be declared permanent and, lastly, that thesaid defendant be sentenced to pay the costs and whateverdamages the plaintiffs might be able to prove therein. Theaction therefore was based upon alleged infringement bythe defendant of the rights and privileges acquired by theplaintiffs over the aforesaid patent through the manufactureand sale by the former of machines similar to that coveredby the aforesaid patent. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment renderedby the trial court dismissing their complaint, with cost, asw e l l a s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m o f P 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

T h e defendant did not appeal.In their amended complaint, the plaintiff allegedthat their hemp stripping machines, for which they obtaineda pa t en t , have t he fo l l owing cha rac t e r i s t i c s : "A s t r i pp ing head, a horizontal table, a stripping knife supported uponsuch t ab l e , a t appe r ing sp ind l e , a r e s t ho lde r ad ju s t ab ly s e c u r e d o n t h e t a b l e p o r t i o n , a l e v e r a n d m e a n s o f   compelling the knife to close upon the table, a pallet or restin the bottom of the table, a resilient cushion under suchpalletor rest." In spite of the fact that they filed an amendedcomplaint from which the "spindle" or conical drum, whichw a s t h e o n l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e m a c h i n e men t ioned i n t he o r i g ina l compla in t , was e l im ina t ed , t he plaintiffs insisted that the said part constitutes the essentiald i f f e r ence be tween t he mach ine i n ques t i on and o the r machines and that it was the principal consideration uponwhich their patent was issued. The said plaintiffs sustainedtheir contention on this point even in their printed brief andmemorandum filed in this appeal.During the trial, both parties presented voluminouse v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t i n cons t ruc t i ng t he i r mach ine t he p l a in t i f f s d id no th ing bu t improve , t o a c e r t a i n deg ree , t hose t ha t we re a l r e ady i nvogue and i n a c tua l u s i n hemp p roduc ing p rov ince s . I t c a n n o t b e s a i d t h a t t h e y h a v e i n v e n t e d t h e " s p i n d l e " inasmuch as this was already known since the year 1909 or1910 . Ne i t he r i t c an be s a id t ha t t hey have i nven t ed t he s t r i p p i n g k n i f e a n d t h e c o n t r i v a n c e w h i c h c o n t r o l s t h e m o v e m e n t a n d p r e s s u r e t h e r e o f o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t s t r i p p i n g k n i v e s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r c o n t r o l s e t s w e r e a l r eady i n a c tua l u se i n t he d i f f e r en t s t r i pp ing mach ine s long before their machine appeared.ISSUE:Whether there is an infringement on the patentsHELD: The trial court did not decree the annulment of theplaintiffs' patent and the herein defendant-appellee insists that

the patent in question should be declared null and void.W e a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t w o u l d b e i m p r o p e r a n d untimely to render a similar judgment, in view of the natureof the action brought by the plaintiffs and in the absence of a c ro s s - compla in t t o t ha t e f f ec t . Fo r t he pu rpose s o f t h i s appea l , su ff i c e i t t o ho ld t ha t t he de f endan t i s no t c i v i l l y liable for alleged infringement of the patent in question.In t he l i gh t o f sound l og i c , t he p l a in t i f f s c anno t i n s i s t t ha t t he " sp ind l e " was a pa t en t ed i nven t i on on t he g r o u n d t h a t s a i d p a r t o f t h e m a c h i n e w a s v o l u n t a r i l y omitted by them from their application, as evidenced by thephotographic copy thereof (Exhibit 41) wherein it likewisea p p e a r s t h a t t h e p a t e n t o n I m p r o v e d H e m p S t r i p p i n g Machines was issued minus the "spindle" in question. Werewe to stress to this part of the machine, we would be givingthe patent obtained by the plaintiffs a wider range than ita c t u a l l y h a s , w h i c h i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f   interpretation in matters relating to patents.In support of their claim the plaintiffs invoke thedoc t r i ne l a i d down by t h i s cou r t i n t he c a se o f F rank and Gohnvs.Benito (51 Phil., 712), wherein it was held that thetherein defendant really infringed upon the patent of thetherein plaintiffs. It may be noted that the plaintiffs in theformer and those of the latter case are the same and thatthe patent then involved is the very same one upon whichthe present action of the plaintiffs is based. The above-citedcase, however, cannot be invoked as a precedent to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants on the groundthat the facts in one case entirely different from those in theother. In the former case the defendant did not set up thes a m e s p e c i a l d e f e n s e s a s t h o s e a l l e g e d b y t h e h e r e i n defendant in his answer and the plaintiffs therein confinedt h e m s e l v e s t o p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a t e n t , o r r a t h e r a c o p y the reo f , whe re in t he " sp ind l e " was men t i oned , and t h i s cou r t t ook fo r g r an t ed t he i r

c l a im tha t i t was one o f t hee s sen t i a l cha rac t e r i s t i c s t he r eo f wh ich was im i t a t ed o r copied by the then defendant. Thus it came to pass that the" s p i n d l e " i n q u e s t i o n w a s i n s i s t e n t l y m e n t i o n e d i n t h e dec i s i on r ende red on appea l a s t he e s sen t i a l pa r t o f t he plaintiffs' machine allegedly imitated by the then defendant.I n t h e c a s e u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e "spindle" is not an integral part of the machine patented bythe plaintiffs on the ground that it was eliminated from theirp a t e n t i n a s m u c h a s i t w a s e x p r e s s l y e x c l u d e d i n t h e i r application, as evidenced by the aforesaid Exhibit 41.Wherefore, reiterating that the defendant cannotbe held civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patentupon which the present action is based on the ground thatthere is no essential part of the machine manufactured ands o l d b y h i m , w h i c h w a s u n k n o w n t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h e Province of Davao at the time the plaintiffs applied for ando b t a i n e d t h e i r p a t e n t f o r i m p r o v e d h e m p s t r i p p i n g machines, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed,with the costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.VARGAS v CHUA57 PHIL 784FACTS:Ange l Va rgas , t he p l a in t i f f he r e in , b rough t t h i s action to restrain the appellants and the other defendantentity, Cham Samco & Sons, their agents and mandatories,from continuing the manufacture and sale of plows similarto his plow described in his patent No. 1,507,530 issued bythe United States Patent Office on September 2, 1924; andSOTELO, MS | 4