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