Maguan filed a complaint against Luchan for infringing on Maguan's patents for powder puff designs. Maguan holds patents under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109, ExtensionUM-110 and Utility Model No. 1184. Maguan informed Luchan that the powder puffs Luchan was manufacturing and selling resembled those protected by Maguan's patents. Luchan denied the infringement and argued the patents were invalid. The court ruled that Maguan has the right to file an action for injunction against infringement of a patent before the Court of First Instance. As the patent holder, Maguan has the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented products, and others doing so without authorization would constitute
Maguan filed a complaint against Luchan for infringing on Maguan's patents for powder puff designs. Maguan holds patents under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109, ExtensionUM-110 and Utility Model No. 1184. Maguan informed Luchan that the powder puffs Luchan was manufacturing and selling resembled those protected by Maguan's patents. Luchan denied the infringement and argued the patents were invalid. The court ruled that Maguan has the right to file an action for injunction against infringement of a patent before the Court of First Instance. As the patent holder, Maguan has the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented products, and others doing so without authorization would constitute
Maguan filed a complaint against Luchan for infringing on Maguan's patents for powder puff designs. Maguan holds patents under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109, ExtensionUM-110 and Utility Model No. 1184. Maguan informed Luchan that the powder puffs Luchan was manufacturing and selling resembled those protected by Maguan's patents. Luchan denied the infringement and argued the patents were invalid. The court ruled that Maguan has the right to file an action for injunction against infringement of a patent before the Court of First Instance. As the patent holder, Maguan has the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented products, and others doing so without authorization would constitute
A patentee shall have the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented article or product and the making, using, or selling by any person without the authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of the patent (Sec. 37, R.A. 165). Any patentee whose rights have been infringed upon may bring an action before the proper CFI now (RTC) and to secure an injunction for the protection of his rights. FACTS: Maguan is doing business under the firm name and style of SWAN MANUFACTURING" while Luchan is likewise doing business under the firm name and style of "SUSANA LUCHAN POWDER PUFFMANUFACTURING.Maguan informed Luchan that the powder puffs Luchan is manufacturing and selling to various enterprises particularly those in the cosmetics industry, resemble Identical or substantially Identical powder puffs of which she (Maguan) is a patent holder under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM-109, ExtensionUM-110 and Utility Model No. 1184; Maguan explained such production and sale constitute infringement of said patents and therefore its immediate discontinuance is demanded, otherwise it will be compelled totake judicial action. Luchan replied stating that her products are different and countered that Maguans patents are void because the utility models applied for were not new and patentable and the person to whom the patents were issued was not the true and actual author nor were her rights derived from such author. Maguan filed a complaint for damages with injunction and preliminary injunction against Luchan with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal. The trial court issued an Order granting the preliminary injunction prayed for. Consequently, the corresponding writ was subsequently issued. Issue: WON in Maguan has a right to file an action before the CFI for injunction due to infringement of her patent. Ruling: Yes. Rationale: When a patent is sought to be enforced, the questions of invention, novelty or prior use, and each of them, are open to judicial examination. Under the present Patent Law, there is even less reason to doubt that the trial court has jurisdiction to declare the patents in question invalid. A patentee shall have the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented article or product and the making, using, or selling by any person without the authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of the patent (Sec. 37, R.A. 165).Any patentee whose rights have been infringed upon may bring an action before the proper CFI now (RTC) and to secure an injunction for the protection of his rights. The burden of proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. But where the plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence, and the same is in due form, there is created a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. The decision of the Commissioner (now Director) of Patent in granting the patent is presumed to be correct. The burden of going forward with the evidence (burden of evidence)then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption.
Lorcom Thirteen (Pty) LTD V Zurich Insurance Company South Africa LTD (54 - 08) (2013) ZAWCHC 64 2013 (5) SA 42 (WCC) (2013) 4 All SA 71 (WCC) (29 April 2013)