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