You are on page 1of 2

ATENTS: DIGESTS

T h e defendant did not appeal.In their amended


plow over two years prior to the
complaint, the plaintiff allegedthat their hemp
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p a t e n t . S u c h b e i n g t h e stripping machines, for which they obtaineda
c a s e , a l t h o u g h o n a d i ff e r e n t g r o u n d ,
patent, have the following
w e m u s t s u s t a i n t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : " A s t r i p p i n g head, a
l o w e r c o u r t , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e horizontal table, a stripping knife supported
determination of the damages
upons u c h t a b l e , a t a p p e r i n g s p i n d l e , a
resultingfrom the granting of the
rest holder adjustablys e c u r e d o n t h e
i n j u n c t i o n , w i t h t h e c o s t s o f t h i s instance t a b l e p o r t i o n , a l e v e r a n d m e a n s
against the appellant. So ordered.
o f compelling the knife to close upon the
FRANK v KOSUYAMA59 PHIL 206
table, a pallet or restin the bottom of the
FACTS:P a t e n t o n i m p r o v e m e n t
table, a resilient cushion under such palletor
i n h e m p s t r i p p i n g machines,
rest." In spite of the fact that they filed an
issued by the United States Patent
amendedcomplaint from which the "spindle"
O ff i c e a n d registered in the Bureau of
or conical drum, whichw a s t h e o n l y
Commerce and Industry of theP h i l i p p i n e , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e o f t h e
was the origin of this action brought by m a c h i n e mentioned in the original
t h e plaintiffs herein who prayed that the
c o m p l a i n t , w a s e l i m i n a t e d , t h e plaintiffs
judgment be rendereda g a i n s t t h e
insisted that the said part constitutes the
defendant, ordering him thereby to
essentiald i ff e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m a c h i n e
r e f r a i n immediately from the manufacture i n q u e s t i o n a n d o t h e r machines and that it
and sale of machiness i m i l a r t o t h e o n e was the principal consideration uponwhich
covered by the patent: to render
their patent was issued. The said plaintiffs
a n accounting of the profits realized from the
sustainedtheir contention on this point even
manufacture andsale of the machines in
in their printed brief andmemorandum filed in
question; that in case of refusal orf a i l u r e this appeal.During the trial, both parties presented
to render such accounting, the
voluminouse v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t h e
d e f e n d a n t s b e ordered to pay the
trial court concluded that
p l a i n t i ff s t h e s u m o f P 6 0 a s p r o f i t
i n constructing their machine the
o n e a c h m a c h i n e m a n u f a c t u r e d o r s o l d p l a i n t i ff s d i d n o t h i n g b u t i m p r o v e , t o a
b y h i m ; t h a t u p o n approval of the required
certain degree, those that were already
bond, said defendant be restrainedfrom
invogue and in actual us in hemp
continuing the manufacture and sale of the p r o d u c i n g p r o v i n c e s . I t c a n n o t b e s a i d
same kindof machines; that after the trial the t h a t t h e y h a v e i n v e n t e d t h e
preliminary injunctionissued therein be
" s p i n d l e " inasmuch as this was already known
declared permanent and, lastly, that thesaid since the year 1909 or1 9 1 0 . N e i t h e r i t c a n
defendant be sentenced to pay the costs and b e s a i d t h a t t h e y h a v e i n v e n t e d
whateverdamages the plaintiffs might be
thes t r i p p i n g k n i f e a n d t h e
able to prove therein. Theaction therefore
contrivance which controls
was based upon alleged infringement bythe t h e m o v e m e n t a n d p r e s s u r e
defendant of the rights and privileges
thereof on the ground
acquired by theplaintiffs over the aforesaid
t h a t stripping knives together with
patent through the manufactureand sale by the
t h e i r c o n t r o l s e t s w e r e already in
former of machines similar to that covered by a c t u a l u s e i n t h e d i ff e r e n t s t r i p p i n g
the aforesaid patent. The plaintiffs appealed from m a c h i n e s long before their machine
the judgment renderedby the trial court
appeared.ISSUE:Whether there is an infringement
dismissing their complaint, with cost,
on the patentsHELD: The trial court did not
asw e l l a s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
decree the annulment of theplaintiffs' patent
counterclaim of P10,000.
and the herein defendant-appellee insiststhat

the patent in question should be declared null and c l a i m t h a t i t w a s o n e o f t h e e s s e n t i a l


void.W e a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e r e o f w h i c h w a s
w o u l d b e i m p r o p e r a n d untimely to
i m i t a t e d o r copied by the then defendant. Thus it
render a similar judgment, in view of the natureof came to pass that the" s p i n d l e " i n q u e s t i o n
the action brought by the plaintiffs and in
was insistently mentioned in
the absence of a c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t t o t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n r e n d e r e d o n a p p e a l a s t h e
e ff e c t . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l , e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f t h e plaintiffs' machine
s u ff i c e i t t o h o l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s allegedly imitated by the then defendant.I n t h e
n o t c i v i l l y liable for alleged infringement of the c a s e u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t i s
patent in question.I n t h e l i g h t o f s o u n d
o b v i o u s t h a t t h e "spindle" is not an
logic, the plaintiffs cannotinsist that
integral part of the machine patented bythe
t h e " s p i n d l e " w a s a p a t e n t e d i n v e n t i o n plaintiffs on the ground that it was eliminated from
on theg r o u n d t h a t s a i d p a r t o f t h e
theirp a t e n t i n a s m u c h a s i t w a s
m a c h i n e w a s v o l u n t a r i l y omitted by
e x p r e s s l y e x c l u d e d i n t h e i r application,
them from their application, as evidenced by
as evidenced by the aforesaid Exhibit
thephotographic copy thereof (Exhibit 41)
41.Wherefore, reiterating that the defendant
wherein it likewisea p p e a r s t h a t t h e
cannotbe held civilly liable for alleged
patent on Improved Hemp
infringement of the patentupon which the
S t r i p p i n g Machines was issued minus the present action is based on the ground
"spindle" in question. Werewe to stress to this thatthere is no essential part of the machine
part of the machine, we would be givingthe patent manufactured ands o l d b y h i m , w h i c h
obtained by the plaintiffs a wider range than w a s u n k n o w n t o t h e p u b l i c i n
ita c t u a l l y h a s , w h i c h i s c o n t r a r y t h e Province of Davao at the time the
t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f interpretation in plaintiffs applied for ando b t a i n e d t h e i r
matters relating to patents.In support of their
patent for improved hemp
claim the plaintiffs invoke thed o c t r i n e l a i d s t r i p p i n g machines, the judgment
d o w n b y t h i s c o u r t i n t h e c a s e o f F r a n k appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the
a n d Gohn
costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.
vs.
VARGAS v CHUA57 PHIL 784
Benito (51 Phil., 712), wherein it was held that
FACTS:A n g e l Va rg a s , t h e p l a i n t i ff
thetherein defendant really infringed upon
h e r e i n , b r o u g h t t h i s action to restrain the
the patent of thetherein plaintiffs. It may be appellants and the other defendantentity,
noted that the plaintiffs in theformer and
Cham Samco & Sons, their agents and
those of the latter case are the same and
mandatories,from continuing the
thatthe patent then involved is the very same manufacture and sale of plows similarto his
one upon whichthe present action of the
plow described in his patent No. 1,507,530
plaintiffs is based. The above-citedcase, however, issued bythe United States Patent Office on
cannot be invoked as a precedent to justify
September 2, 1924; and
a judgment in favor of the plaintiffsSOTELO, MS | 4
appellants on the groundthat the facts in one
case entirely different from those in theother. In
the former case the defendant did not set up
thes a m e s p e c i a l d e f e n s e s a s t h o s e
a l l e g e d b y t h e h e r e i n defendant in his
answer and the plaintiffs therein
confinedt h e m s e l v e s t o p r e s e n t i n g t h e
p a t e n t , o r r a t h e r a c o p y thereof,
wherein the "spindle" was mentioned,
and thiscourt took for granted their

You might also like