Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PETITIONERS CLAIMS:
RESPONDENTS CLAIMS:
1. Petitioners application is not entitled to right of priority under sec 15 of the patent law
but will be treated as an ordinary application because said application was not
complete within the meaning of Rules 47 and 48 of the Revised Rules
of Practice in Patent Case when first filed on March 5, 1954.
ISSUE:
WON THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY?
SC RULING:
As to the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the power and
authority of the Director of Patents to decide on the petitioners appeal is laid down
by Rule 262 of the Revised Rules of Practice in Patent Cases. It held that the
Director is empowered to consider grounds which may have come to his knowledge
other than those specifically raised in an appeal He need not confine himself only to
issues invoked.
As to the second issue, the court ruled in the negative. It held that pursuant to
Rules 47 and 48 of the same, the application must be complete in order that it may
be accepted. Since the specification that was submitted on an earlier date was not
complete, there was a defect in substance.
PLAINTIFFS CLAIM:
3. the defendants have confused the substance which is the subject matter of
the complaint, namely, "Chloramphenicol Palmitate", with the substance
covered by the compulsory licensing case, namely, "Chloramphenicol", and
the Letters Patent subject of the complaint, namely, Letters Patent No. 279,
with the Letters Patent subject of the compulsory licensing case, namely,
Letters Patent No. 50.
RESPONDENTS CLAIM:
ISSUE:
WON the court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it
lacks cause of action?
SC RULING:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that It is axiomatic that in resolving a
motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action,
the court should hypothetically assume the truth of the factual allegations of the
complaint and determine whether on the basis thereof, the complainant is entitled
to the relief demanded. It further held that: instead of hypothetically assuming the
truth of the plaintiff's allegation that "Chloramphenicol" and "Chloramphenicol
Palmitate are two different substances, the lower court had ruled against its
veracity.
Petitioners Claim:
1. he was a patentee of an audio equipment and improved audio
audio equipment
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to the grant of injunctive relief?
Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the petitioner had
established prima facie proof of violation of his rights as patentee to justify
2. and that it had the capability to work the patented product or make
use of it in its manufacture of medicine.
ISSUE:
WON the Letters Patent granted to the respondent were properly issued?
SC RULING:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. It upheld the decision of the Director of
Patents in finding that the evidences presented by the petitioner failed to serve
as anticipatory bars since they were all undated. The Director also ruled that
petitioners failed to prove that the patent was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation. The Court held that The validity of the patent issued by the
Philippine Patent Office in favor of private respondent and the question over the
inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the LPG burner
are matters which are better determined by the Patent Office. Also, it held that
There is a presumption that the Office has correctly determined the patentability
of the model[8] and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of
competent evidence to the contrary.