VARGAS VS. F.M. YAPTICO and Co.

(What are patentable Inventions; Standards; Novelty) -

FACTS: Plaintiff Angel Vargas a farmer, was issued patents by the United States Patent Office
for his so-called invention of an improved adjustable plow with the use his own native plow. A
certified copy of the patent was filed in the Division of Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks of
the Executive Bureau, Government of the Philippine Islands.

Defendant, a firm engaged in the foundry business in Iloilo City, was a manufacturer of plow
parts. It produced points, shares, shoes, and heel pieces in a considerable amount adapted to
replace worn-out parts of the Vargas plow.

Vargas filed a case in the CFI of Iloilo to enjoin the alleged infringement of his U.S. Patent by the
defendant and to recover the damages suffered by reason of this infringement, to which the court
issued the preliminary injunction prayed for.

The defendant denied the allegations contending that the patent lacked novelty or invention, that
there was no priority of ideas or device in the principle and construction of the plow, and that
the plow, whose manufacture it was sought to have enjoined by the plaintiff, had already been
in public use for more than two years before the application of the plaintiff for his patent.

The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, declaring null and without effect the
patent in question and dismissing the suit with costs against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff
appealed said judgment.

ISSUE:
A. Whether the patented invention is void for lack of novelty and invention.
B. Whether the patent is invalid considering that the plow had already been in public use for
over two years prior to the application for a patent.

HELD:

A. YES, It is void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the plow of the
plaintiff is not different from the native plow, except in the material, in the form, in the weight
and the grade of the result, the said differences giving it neither a new function nor a new result
distinct from the function and the result obtained from the native plow. Also, its production does
not presuppose the exercise of the inventive faculty but merely of mechanical skill, which does
not give a right to a patent of an invention under the provisions of the Patent Law.

B. YES. it is invalid. Under the provisions of the statute, an inventor's creation must not have
been in public use or on sale in the United States (and the Philippine Islands) for more than two
years prior to his application.

Further, it was proved that the invention was used in public at Iloilo by others than Vargas, the
inventor, more than two years before the application for the patent thus, the patent is invalid.

WHAT ARE PATENTABLE INVENTIONS? Any person who has invented or discovered any new
and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new an useful
improvements thereof, not known or used by others in this country, before his invention or
discovery thereof, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign
country, before his invention or discovery thereof, or more than two years prior to his application,
and not in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years prior to his application,
unless the same is proved to have been abandoned, may upon payment of the fees required by
law, and other due proceeding had, obtain a patent therefor.

STANDARDS: When a patent is sought to be enforced, "the question of invention, novelty, or

Element of novelty, invention, or discovery, gives existence to the right to a patent. In the case
at bar, there was no priority of ideas or device in the principle and construction of the plow
(patentable object). AND it had already been in public use for more than two years before the
application of the plaintiff for his patent.
CRESER PRECISION SYSTEM, INC. VS. CA and FLORO INTL. CORP. (WHO CAN FILE) -1998

FACTS: FLORO INTL was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer (BPTTT) a Letter of patent for its aerial fuze a fuze may be identified by function as the
exploder such as torpedoes etc) on January 23, 1990.

Sometime in 1993, FLORO INTL discovered that CRESER submitted samples of its patented
aerial fuze to the AFP for testing claiming to be his own.

To protect its right, respondent sent letter of warning to petitioner on a possible court action
should it proceed its testing by the AFP. In response CRESER filed a complaint for injunction
and damages arising from alleged infringement before the RTC of QC. It asserted that it is the
true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze which it developed on 1981 under the Self Reliance
Defense Posture Program of the AFP. It has been supplying the military of the aerial fuze since
then and that the fuze of FLORO INTL is similar as that of CRESER.

CRESER prayed for restraining order and injunction from marketing, manufacturing and
profiting from the said invention by the FLORO INTL.

The RTC ruled in favor of CRESER citing the fact that it was the first to develop the aerial fuze
since 1981 thus it concludes that it is CRESER’S aerial fuze that was copied by FLORO INTL.

Moreover, the claim of FLORO INTL is solely based on its letter of patent which validity is being
questioned.

On appeal, FLORO INTL argued that the petitioner has no cause of action since he has no right
to assert there being no patent issued to his aerial fuze. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC
dismissing the complaint of CRESER.

It was the contention of the CRESER that it can file under Section 42 of the Patent Law an action
for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right, title or interest to the
patented invention. It theorizes that while the absence of a patent prevents one from lawfully
suing another for infringement of said patent, such absence does not bar the true and actual
inventor of the patented invention from suing another in the same nature as a civil action for
infringement.

ISSUE: WON CRESER has the right to assail the validity of the patented work of FLORO INTL.

HELD: NO. The court finds the argument of the petitioner untenable.

Section 42 of the Law on Patent (RA 165) provides that only the patentee or his successors-in-
interest may file an action against infringement.

What the law contemplates in the phrase “anyone possessing any right, title or interest in
and to the patented invention” refers only to the patentee’s successors-in-interest, assignees
or grantees since the action on patent infringement may be brought only in the name of the
person granted with the patent.

There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued since the right one has
over the invention covered by the patent arises from the grant of the patent alone.

Therefore, a person who has not been granted letter of patent over an invention has not acquired
right or title over the invention and thus has no cause of action for infringement.

CRESER admitted to have no patent over his invention. FLORO INTL’S aerial fuze is covered by
letter of patent issued by the Bureau of Patents thus it has in his favor not only the presumption
of validity of its patent but that of a legal and factual first and true inventor of the invention.