Scribd
Upload
43 views2 pages

Creser Precision Systems, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP., Respondents

Petitioner Cresser Precision Systems Inc. filed a complaint for injunction and damages against respondent Floro International Corp. for patent infringement of an aerial fuze. Floro held the patent for the aerial fuze and warned Cresser against manufacturing it without a license. Cresser claimed it was the true inventor. The Court of Appeals ruled that only a patent holder or their successors can file an infringement case. The law does not allow a claimed original inventor without a patent to sue for infringement. The court determined Cresser did not have standing to file the complaint against the valid patent holder, Floro.

Uploaded by

Marie Cecile
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views2 pages

Creser Precision Systems, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP., Respondents

Petitioner Cresser Precision Systems Inc. filed a complaint for injunction and damages against respondent Floro International Corp. for patent infringement of an aerial fuze. Floro held the patent for the aerial fuze and warned Cresser against manufacturing it without a license. Cresser claimed it was the true inventor. The Court of Appeals ruled that only a patent holder or their successors can file an infringement case. The law does not allow a claimed original inventor without a patent to sue for infringement. The court determined Cresser did not have standing to file the complaint against the valid patent holder, Floro.

Uploaded by

Marie Cecile
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs.

COURT OF
APPEALS AND
FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP., respondents.
G.R. No. 118708. February 2, 1998

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari


FACTS:
Respondent Floro International Corp., being a patent holder of aerial fuze,
warned petitioner that a possible court action and/or application for
injunction may be filed against the latter should he tries to own and
manufacture the aerial fuze commercially without license or authority from
the former. Petitioner Cresser Precision Systems Inc. then filed a complaint
for injunction and damages arising from infringement alleging that it was the
first, true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze. Petitioner contended that
under Section 42 of the Patent Law, an action for infringement can be filed
not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right, title or interest in
and to the patented invention. It advances the theory that while the absence
of a patent may prevent one from lawfully suing another for infringement of
said patent, such absence does not bar the first true and actual inventor of
the patented invention from suing another who was granted a patent in a
suit for declaratory or injunctive relief.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a complaint for injunction and damages arising from
infringement may be filed by a person or entity claiming a right, title or
interest in and to a patented invention against the patent holder of such
invention
RULING:
NO. Section 42. Civil action for infringement of R.A. 165 or The Patent
Law, explicitly provides: Any patentee, or anyone possessing any right, title
or interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights have been
infringed, may bring a civil action before the proper Court of First Instance
(now Regional Trial court), to recover from the infringer damages sustained

by reason of the infringement and to secure an injunction for the protection


of his right.
Under the aforequoted law, only the patentee or his successors-ininterest may file an action for infringement. The phrase anyone possessing
any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention upon which
petitioner maintains its present suit, refers only to the patentees successorsin-interest, assignees or grantees since actions for infringement of patent
may be brought in the name of the person or persons interested, whether as
patentee, assignees or grantees, of the exclusive right.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy