0% found this document useful (0 votes)
92 views3 pages

Vargas v. Chua

The document summarizes a court case between Angel Vargas and several defendants over patent infringement of Vargas' plow design. It describes that Vargas holds a US patent for an improved plow design and has been manufacturing plows according to this patent. The defendants Petronila Chua and Coo Teng Hee have also been manufacturing similar plows in violation of Vargas' patent. The court found in favor of Vargas and ordered the defendants to cease manufacturing the infringing plows and provide an accounting of profits from sales.

Uploaded by

Genn Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
92 views3 pages

Vargas v. Chua

The document summarizes a court case between Angel Vargas and several defendants over patent infringement of Vargas' plow design. It describes that Vargas holds a US patent for an improved plow design and has been manufacturing plows according to this patent. The defendants Petronila Chua and Coo Teng Hee have also been manufacturing similar plows in violation of Vargas' patent. The court found in favor of Vargas and ordered the defendants to cease manufacturing the infringing plows and provide an accounting of profits from sales.

Uploaded by

Genn Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No. L-36650 January 27, 1933 2.

That the defendant, Petronila Chua, is also


of age, and is married to Coo Pao alias Coo
ANGEL VARGAS, plaintiff-appellee, Paoco, and resides in Iloilo.
vs.
PETRONILA CHUA, ET AL., defendants-appellants. 3. That the defendant, Coo Teng Hee, is also
of age and a resident of Iloilo, and is the sole
Jose F. Orozco for appellants. owner of the business known as Coo Kun &
Jose Yulo for appellee. Sons Hardware Co. established in Iloilo.

IMPERIAL, J.: 4. That the defendant, Cham Samco & Sons, is


a commercial partnership duly organized under
The defendants Petronila Chua, Coo Pao and Coo the laws of the Philippine Islands, with their
Teng Hee, appeal from the judgment of the Court of principal office in the City of Manila, and that
First Instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which the defendants Cham Samco, Cham Siong E,
reads as follows: Cham Ai Chia and Lee Cham Say, all of age
and residents of the City of Manila, are the
partners of the firm Cham Samco & Sons.
Wherefore judgment is rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering
each and every one of them, their agents, 5. The parties take for granted that the
mandatories and attorneys, to henceforth complaint in this case is amended in the sense
abstain from making, manufacturing, selling or that it includes Coo Paoco as party defendant
offering for a sale plows of the type of those in his capacity as husband of the defendant,
manufactured by the plaintiff, and particularly Petronila Chua, with Attorney Jose F. Orozco
plows of the model of Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2, also representing him, and that he renounces
and to render to the plaintiff a detailed his rights to receive summons in this case by
accounting of the profits obtained by them from reproducing the answer of his codefendant,
the manufacture and sale of said type of plows Petronila Chua.
within thirty (30) days from the date of the
receipt by them of notice of this decision, with 6. That the plaintiff is the registered owner and
costs against all of the defendants. possessor of United States Patent No.
1,507,530 on certain plow improvements,
Angel Vargas, the plaintiff herein, brought this action to issued by the United States Patent Office on
restrain the appellants and the other defendant entity, September 2, 1924, a certified copy of which
Cham Samco & Sons, their agents and mandatories, was registered in the Bureau of Commerce and
from continuing the manufacture and sale of plows industry of the Government of the Philippine
similar to his plow described in his patent No. Islands on October 17, 1924. A certified copy
1,507,530 issued by the United States Patent Office on of said patent is attached to this stipulation of
September 2, 1924; and to compel all of said facts as Exhibit A.
defendants, after rendering an accounting of the profits
obtained by them from the sale of said plows from 7. That the plaintiff is now and has been
September 2, 1924, to pay him damages equivalent to engaged, since the issuance of his patent, in
double the amount of such profits. the manufacture and sale of plows of the kind,
type and design covered by the
It appears from the bill of exceptions that Cham Samco aforementioned patent, said plows being of
& Sons did not appeal. different sizes and numbered in accordance
therewith from 1 to 5.
In addition to the evidence presented, the parties
submitted the following stipulation of facts: 8. That, since the filing of the complaint to date,
the defendant, Petronila Chua, has been
manufacturing and selling plows of the kind,
The parties agree on the following facts:
type and design represented by Exhibits B, B-
1 and B-2, of different sizes, designated by
1. That the plaintiff, Angel Vargas, is of age and Nos. 2, 4 and 5.
a resident of the municipality of Iloilo, Iloilo,
Philippine Islands.
9. That, since the filing of the complaint to date,
the defendant, Coo Teng Hee, doing business
in Iloilo under the name of Coo Kun & Sons
Hardware Co., has been obtaining his plows, of
the form and size of Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2, 16. That the document, Exhibit 1-Chua, is a
from the defendant Petronila Chua. certified copy of the amended complaint, the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
10. Without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to and that of the Supreme Court (R. G. No.
ask the defendants to render an accounting in 14101) in civil case No. 3044 of Iloilo, entitled
case the court deem it proper, the parties agree "Angel Vargas", plaintiff, vs. F. M. Yaptico &
that the defendant Coo Teng Hee, doing Co., Ltd., defendant", and that Exhibit 2-Chua
business under the name of Coo Kun & Sons et al. is a certified copy of Patent No.
Hardware Co., has been selling to his 1,020,232, to which the aforementioned
customers in his store on J. Ma. Basa Street in complaint and decision refer, issued in favor of
Iloilo, plows of the kind, type and design Angel Vargas by the United States Patent
represented by Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2, having Office on March 12, 1912, and that Exhibit 3-
bought said plows from his codefendant, Chua et al., represents the plow manufactured
Petronila Chua, who manufactures them in her by Angel Vargas in accordance with his Patent
factory on Iznart Street, Iloilo. marked Exhibit 2-Chua et al.

11. That, according to the invoices marked The appellants assign the following errors:
Exhibits C and C-2 dated March 13, 1928, and
June 19, 1928, respectively, the defendant FIRST ERROR
Cham Samco & Sons, on the dates mentioned,
had, in the ordinary course of business, bought The trial court erred in declaring that the
of its codefendant Coo Kun & Sons Hardware Vargas plow, Exhibit F (covered by Patent No.
Co., 90 plows of the form, type and design of 1,507,530) is distinct from the old model
Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2 which it has been Vargas plow, Exhibit 2-Chua, covered by the
selling in its store on Sto. Cristo Street, Manila. former Patent No. 1,020,232, which had been
declared null and void by this court.
12. That the same defendant Cham Samco &
Sons, in the ordinary course of business, SECOND ERROR
bought on March 17, 1928, of the store "El
Progreso" owned by Yao Ki & Co., of Iloilo, a The trial court erred in mistaking the
lot of 50 plows, of the form, type and design of improvement on the plow for the plow itself.
Exhibit B-1, as shown by Invoice C-1, and that
it has been selling them in its store on Sto.
THIRD ERROR
Cristo St., Manila.
The trial court erred in rendering judgment in
13. That, on September 19, 1928, the
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
defendant Cham Samco & Sons, sold in its
store on Sto. Cristo St., Manila, the plow Exhibit
B-1, for the sale of which invoice Exhibit D was FOURTH ERROR
issued.
The trial court erred in not dismissing the
14. That, on December 20, 1927, the plaintiff complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
herein, through his attorneys Paredes,
Buencamino & Yulo, sent by registered mail to The evidence shows that Exhibit F is the kind of plows
the herein defendant, Coo Kun & Sons the plaintiff, Angel Vargas, manufactures, for which
Hardware Co., at Iloilo, the original of the letter Patent No. 1,507,530, Exhibit A, was issued in his
Exhibit E, which was received by it on favor. Exhibits B, B-1 and B-2 are samples of the plows
September 28, 1927, according to the receipt which the herein appellants, Coo Pao and Petronila
marked Exhibit E-1 attached hereto. Chua, have been manufacturing since 1918, and
Exhibit 3-Chua represents the plow for which, on March
15. That the plows manufactured by the plaintiff 12, 1912, the appellee obtained a patent from the
in accordance with his patent, Exhibit A, are United States Patent Office, which was declared null
commonly known to the trade in Iloilo, as well and void by the Supreme Court in the case of Vargas
as in other parts of the Philippines, as "Arados vs. F. M. Yap Tico & Co. (40 Phil., 195).
Vargas", and that the plaintiff is the sole
manufacturer of said plows. A sample of these With these facts in view, the principal and perhaps the
plows is presented as Exhibit F. only question we are called upon to decide is whether
the plow, Exhibit F, constitutes a real invention or an
improvement for which a patent may be obtained, or if, and expert examination of the invention by the
on the contrary, it is substantially the same plow United States Patent Office, the question of the
represented by Exhibit 3-Chua the patent for which was validity of the patent is one for judicial
declared null and void in the aforementioned case determination, and since a patent has been
of Vargas vs. F. M. Yaptico & Co., supra. submitted, the exact question is whether the
defendant has assumed the burden of proof as
We have carefully examined all the plows presented as to anyone of his defenses. (See Agawan
exhibits as well as the designs of those covered by the Co. vs. Jordan [1869], 7 Wall., 583;
patent, and we are convinced that no substantial Blanchard vs. Putnam [1869], 8 Wall., 420;
difference exists between the plow, Exhibit F, and the Seymour vs. Osborne [1871], 11 Wall., 516;
plow, Exhibit 3-Chua which was originally patented by Reckendorfer vs. Faber [1876], 92 U. S., 347;
the appellee, Vargas. The only difference noted by us 20 R. C. L., 1112, 1168, 1169.)
is the suppression of the bolt and the three holes on
the metal strap attached to the handle bar. These holes Although we spent some time in arriving at this
and bolt with its nut were suppressed in Exhibit F in point, yet, having reached it, the question in the
which the beam is movable as in the original plow. The case is single and can be brought to a narrow
members of this court, with the plows in view, arrived compass. Under the English Statute of
at the conclusion that not only is there no fundamental Monopolies (21 Jac. Ch., 3), and under the
difference between the two plows but no improvement United States Patent Act of February 21, 1793,
whatever has been made on the latest model, for the later amended to be as herein quoted, it was
same working and movement of the beam existed in always the rule, as stated by Lord Coke,
the original model with the advantage, perhaps, that its Justice Story and other authorities, that to
graduation could be carried through with more certainty entitle a man to a patent, the invention must be
by the use of the bolt which as has already been stated, new to the world. (Pennock and
was adjustable and movable. Sellers vs. Dialogue [1829], 2 Pet., 1.) As said
by the United States Supreme Court, "it has
As to the fact, upon which much emphasis was laid, been repeatedly held by this court that a single
that deeper furrows can be made with the new model, instance of public use of the invention by a
we have seen that the same results can be had with patentee of more than two years before the
the old implement. date of his application for his patent will be fatal
to the validity of the patent when issued."
In view of the foregoing, we are firmly convinced that (Worley vs. Lower Tobacco Co. [1882], 104 U.
the appellee is not entitled to the protection he seeks S., 340; McClurg vs. Kingsland [1843], 1 How.,
for the simple reason that his plow, Exhibit F, does not 202; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. vs. Wright
constitute an invention in the legal sense, and because, [1877], 94 U. S., 92; Egbert vs. Lippmann
according to the evidence, the same type of plows had [1881], 104 U. S., 333; Coffin vs. Ogden
been manufactured in this country and had been in use [1874], 18 Wall., 120; Manning vs. Cape Ann
in many parts of the Philippine Archipelago, especially Isinglass and Glue Co. [1883], 108 U. S., 462;
in the Province of Iloilo, long before he obtained his last Andrews vs. Hovey [1887], 123 U. S., 267;
patent. Campbell vs. City of New York [1888], 1 L. R.
A., 48.)
In the above mentioned case of Vargas vs. F. M.
Yaptico & Co., we said: We repeat that in view of the evidence presented, and
particularly of the examination we have made of the
plows, we cannot escape the conclusion that the plow
When a patent is sought to be enforced, "the
upon which the appellee's contention is based, does
questions of invention, novelty, or prior use,
not constitute an invention and, consequently, the
and each of them, are open to judicial
privilege invoked by him is untenable and the patent
examination." The burden of proof to
acquired by him should be declared ineffective.
substantiate a charge of infringement is with
the plaintiff. Where, however, the plaintiff
introduces the patent in evidence, if it is the due The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
form, it affords a prima facie presumption of its the appellants are absolved from the complaint, with
correctness and validity. The decision of the costs of this instance against the appellee. So ordered.
Commissioner of Patents in granting the patent
is always presumed to be correct. The burden Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real,
then shifts to the defendant to overcome by Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Butte, JJ., concur.
competent evidence this legal presumption.
With all due respects, therefore, for the critical

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