Scribd
Upload
256 views2 pages

Gsell v. Yap-Jue.

This case discusses the doctrine of mechanical equivalents in the context of patent infringement. The plaintiff held a patent for curving cane handles using a lamp fed with mineral oil. The defendant began curving handles using an identical process except substituting a lamp fed with alcohol. The court held that this was infringement under the doctrine of mechanical equivalents, as alcohol is a well-known equivalent substitute for mineral oil, and the lamp fuel is an unessential part of the patented process. The doctrine protects patentees from infringers substituting equivalent parts to avoid infringement.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
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
256 views2 pages

Gsell v. Yap-Jue.

This case discusses the doctrine of mechanical equivalents in the context of patent infringement. The plaintiff held a patent for curving cane handles using a lamp fed with mineral oil. The defendant began curving handles using an identical process except substituting a lamp fed with alcohol. The court held that this was infringement under the doctrine of mechanical equivalents, as alcohol is a well-known equivalent substitute for mineral oil, and the lamp fuel is an unessential part of the patented process. The doctrine protects patentees from infringers substituting equivalent parts to avoid infringement.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
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

GSELL v.

Yap-Jue
GR L-4720
January 19, 1909

Doctrine: “Doctrine of Mechanical Equivalents” may be invoked to protect the


patentee from invasions of his patent under the guise of substitution of some
part of his invention by some well known mechanical equivalent.

Facts:
- This principal case was an action to enjoin infringement of a patented
process for the manufacture of curved handles for canes, parasols and
umbrellas wherein plaintiff was able to establish his title to a valid patent.
The Court also ordered defendant to stop from manufacturing canes and
umbrellas with a curved handle by means of a lamp fed with mineral oil which
process was protected by the patent in favor of Henry GSell.
- *NOTE- The patent is for the product “cane handles for walking sticks and
umbrellas, curved by means of a small lamp or blowpipe”
- Thereafter, defendant still continued to produce curved cane with a process
identical with the process used by plaintiff GSell except that defendant shall
use lamp fed with alcohol as appears from a stipulation entered into
between plaintiff and defendant.
- Contempt proceedings were commenced against defendant for engaging in
unlawful manufacture of umbrella handles by identical process with plaintiff.
- The trial court found defendant not guilty due to the fact that the process
used by defendant was by using an alcohol burning lamp which was
stipulated by the parties.
- Issue presented by plaintiff: WON the use of a patented process a well-known
mechanical equivalent”
- (1) That the use of the lamp fed with petroluem was an unessential part of
the patented process
- (2) That alcohol is an equivalent and proper substitute
- Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to use the patented process, save only for
the substitutions of a lamp fed by alcohol for a lamp fed by petroleum oil and
new proceedings were commenced with the same question mentioned above.

Issue: WON the use of a patented process by a third person, without license or
authority, constitutes as an infringement when the alleged infringer has
substituted some unessential part of the patented process a well known
mechanical equivalent (YES)

Held: YES, it is an infringement under the doctrine of mechanical equivalent to


which the counsel for plaintiff properly invoked. This doctrine is founded upon
sound rules of reason and logic and is of universal application, so that it
matters not whether a patent be issued by one sovereignty or another, the
doctrine may be invoked to protect the patentee from invasions of his patent
under the guise of substitution of some part of his invention by some well
known mechanical equivalent.
Under the doctrine of equivalents, the language of the note in the
descriptive statement applies to the operation of applying heat for the purpose
of curving handles or canes and umbrellas by means of a blast lamp fed with
alcohol, as well as by means of a blast lamp fed with petroleum or mineral oil.
More so, the defendant admitted the fact that he applied heat for the purpose
of curving handles for canes and umbrellas by means a blast lamp fed with
alcohol, he must be deemed to have contempt of violating the patent.

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