2014 JRSantiago

4-25-14
1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
SUMMER Session, AY2013-2014, AUSL
Mondays & Wednesdays, 5:30-9:00 p.m.
Prof. Josephine R. Santiago

SYLLABUS

I OVERVIEW
A. SOURCES
1. Main Sources
a. 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Article XII, Secs. 6 & 14
Article XIV, Secs. 10-18
b. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE (Rep. Act No. 8293), as amended by
Rep. Act No. 10372 (2013)
Rep. Act No. 9502 (Universally Accessible and Quality Medicines Act
of 2008)
Rep. Act No. 9150 (Industrial Design)
2. Other IP and IP-related laws Sources
a. RA 165 (Patent Law)
b. RA 166 (Trademark Law)
c. RA 623 (Use of Duly-Stamped and Marked Containers)
d. New Civil Code (Article 712, Articles 721-724, Articles 520-522)
e. RA 8792 (e-Commerce Law)
f. RA 9168 (Philippine Plant Variety Protection Act)
g. RA 9239 (Optical Media Act)
h. RA 10055 (Philippine Technology Transfer Act of 2009)
i. RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
j. Others
3. Foreign Sources: International Conventions, Treaties and Agreements
a. TRIPSs (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property) Incl
Trade In Counterfeit Goods of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Articles 1-14, 40-73.
b. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property Rights
c. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
d. Rome Convention (International Convention for the Protection of
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations)
e. Patent Cooperation Treaty
f. Madrid Protocol
g. WIPO Internet Treaties (WIPO Copyright Treaty & WIPO Performances and
Producers Treaty)
h. WIPO Convention
2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
2
i. Budapest Treaty (International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms
for the Purposes of Patent Procedure)

B. Points to Remember
1. Negative right
2. Quasi-delict (intent is not an element of the offense)
3. Special law: malum prohibitum
4. Knowledge required for claim of damages
5. Jurisdiction

C. Basic PRINCIPLES, Forms and Functions of IP
1. National Treatment (Paris Convention and TRIPs)
2. Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) - TRIPs
3. Exhaustion of Rights (TRIPs)
4. Independence
5. Territoriality
a. PCT
b. Madrid Protocol
6. Direct Effect
7. Human Rights
See Abbot, F., Cottier, T,., & Gurry, F. (2007) International Intellectual Property in an
Integrated World Economy, Aspen pp. 1-23; 45-83

II INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE, as amended
A. State Policy (Sec. 2)
B. Organization Structure of IPO (Secs. 8 11)
a. BLA Sec. 10
C. Functions/Role of IPO/Bureaus
PMAP v. FPA, 516 SCRA 360
D. Definition of Intellectual Property (Sec. 4, RA 10055)
E. Who are entitled to IP rights (Sec. 3)
a. Signatories to IP Conventions and treaties
National treatment
b. Non-signatory to IP Conventions and treaties BUT extends reciprocal rights
to Philippine nationals by law
Reverse Reciprocity (Sec. 231)
o Not operable under TRIPs member countries because of MFN

F. Differences of forms of IP
Air Philippines v. Pennswell, 540 SCRA 215 (2007) (trade secret)
Pearl & Dean Phil. vs. Shoemart 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
Ching v. Salinas, 462 SCRA 241 (2005)
Kho vs. Court of Appeals, 379 SCRA 410 (2002)
2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
3

G. Repeal of repugnant provisions of Republic Act No. 166
Samson v. Daway, 434 SCRA 612 (2004)
Tan v. Bausch & Lomb, 478 SCRA 115 (2005)

III INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
A. COPYRIGHT
(PART IV: Secs. 171- 226 RA 8293 as amended by RA 10372)

Statutory Right
Pearl & Dean Phil. vs. Shoemart 409 SCRA 231 (2003)

Ching v. Salinas 462 SCRA 241 (2005)
Kho v. CA 379 SCRA 410 (2002)
United Feature Syndicate vs. Munsingwear Creation Mfg. Co. 179 SCRA 260 (1989)

Originality: independent creation; no direct copying or evasive imitation
Sambar v. Levi Strauss & Co. 378 SCRA 365 (2002)
Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs CA 363 SCRA 145 (2001)

Denicola test: Conceptual separability (aesthetics v. functionality)
Brandir Intl v. Cascade Pacific 834 F. 2
nd
1142 (2
nd
Cir.) (1987)

Non-copyrightable (Art. 175)
Feist Publication v. Rural Telephone, 499 US 340 (1991)
Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon 302 SCRA 225 (1999)

Exclusive rights
Santos vs McCullough Printing Company 12 SCRA (1964)

Infringement (Sec. 216-220.2)
NBI-Microsoft Corp. vs Hwang 460 SCRA 428 (2005)
Habana v. Robles 310 SCRA 511 (1999)
Columbia Pictures, Inc., vs CA 261SCRA 144 (1996)
Columbia Pictures, Inc., et. al vs. CA 237 SCRA 367 (1994)
20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs CA 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
Serrano Laktaw vs Paglinawan 44 Phil 855 (1918)

No unfair competition in copyright
Pearl & Dean Phil. vs Shoemart (2003), supra

Neighboring Rights (or Related Rights) Sec. 202 212.4
Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. v. Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Phil. Multi-Media System 576 SCRA 262 (2009)




2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
4




B. PATENTS

1. Purpose of Patent
Pearl & Dean v. SM 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
2. Definition of Patentable Invention (Sec. 21)
a. Product
b. Process
c. Improvement
Aguas v. de Leon 111 SCRA 238 (1982)
3. Who may apply? (Secs. 28, 30)
a. Inventor
b. Successors-in-interest, assignee
c. Employer
4. Ownership of patent
a. Inventor (Sec. 28)
b. First-to-file (Sec. 29)
c. One who commissions the work (Sec. 30)
d. Employer
e. Employee
f. Assignees (Sec. 104)
g. Joint owners (Secs. 104 and 107)
5. Patentable Subject Matter (Sec. 22), as amended by RA 9502
6. Criteria for Patentability
a. Novelty (Sec. 23, 24)
Non-prejudicial disclosure (Sec. 25)
Vargas v. Yaptico 40 Phil 195 (1919)
Frank and Gohn v. Kosuyama 59 Phil 206 (1933)

b. Inventive Step (Sec. 26)
c. Industrial applicability (Sec. 27)
d. Sufficient disclosure (Sec. 35)
e. Patentable Subject Matter (Sec. 22)

7. Patent Application (Sec. 32-39)
a. Filing Date/Priority Date (Secs. 40, 41, 31)
b. Requirements
Request (Sec. 34)
Disclosure and Description (Sec. 35)
Claims (Sec. 36)
Extent of protection and Interpretation of Claims (Sec. 75)
Abstract (Sec. 37)
Drawings [Sec. 32 (c)]
c. Patent Procedure
Formality examination (Sec. 42)
Substantive examination (Sec. 48)
Publication of Application (Sec. 44)
d. Status of Application before Publication (Sec. 45)
e. Rights conferred after Publication (Sec. 46)
2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
5
f. Observation by 3
rd
Parties (No opposition case)
8. Patent Grant and Effectivity (Sec. 50)
9. Term of patent (Sec. 54)
10. Annual fees (Sec. 55)
11. Rights of Patentees
a. Rights conferred by patent (Sec. 71, 78)
Vargas v. Yaptico supra
Creser Precision Systems v. CA 286 SCRA 13 (1998)
Pearl & Dean v. SM supra

12. Limitations of Rights
a. Under Sec. 72 , as amended by RA 9502
Exhaustion of rights
Parallel importation
Roma Drug v. RTC of Guagua 585 SCRA 140 (2009)
b. Prior User (Sec. 73)
c. Use by Government (Sec. 74)
13. REMEDIES
a. Petition for Cancellation of patent or claim
Grounds [Sec. 61, 67.1 (d), 68]
Creser Precision Systems v. CA supra
Verified Petition (Sec. 62)
Committee of Three (Sec. 64)
Order of Cancellation of patent or claim (Sec. 65)
Effects of Cancellation (Sec. 66)
Termination of rights
Immediately executory even pending appeal
Damages (Sec. 68)
b. Petition for Declaration as True and Actual Inventor
Patent application under Sec. 29 (Sec. 67)
Patent application without consent or through fraud (Sec. 68)
Time to file action (Sec. 70)
c. Infringement
Who may file
1. Patentee
2. Successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees
Creser Precision Systems v. CA supra

Kinds of Infringement
Literal Infringement
Doctrine of Mechanical Equivalents
Gsell v. Veloso Yap-Jue 6 Phil 143 (1906)
Gsell v. Veloso Yap-Jue 7 Phil 130 (1906)
Gsell v. Veloso Yap-Jue 12 Phil 519 (1909)

Doctrine of Equivalents
Godines v. CA 226 SCRA 338 (1993)
Smith Kline Beckman Corp. v. CA 409 SCRA 33 (2003)

Civil/administrative (Sec. 76)
Infringing acts
Parke Davis & Co. v. Doctors Pharmaceuticals 104 SCRA 700 (1981)
2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
6
Sanctions
Damages (Secs. 79, 80)
Contributory infringer (nature of liability) (Sec. 76.6)
Jurisdiction
o Court (Sec. 67, 68, 69, 76, 82, 84)
Criminal (Sec. 84)
Requirements
Penalty
Prescriptive period
Jurisdiction
Foreign national (Sec. 3 & 77)
Defenses (Secs. 61, 79, 80, 81, 82)
Limitation for Action for damages
Period (Sec. 79)
Requirement of Knowledge (Sec. 80)
Notice: Presumption of Knowledge
14. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc., 635 SCRA 140 (2010)
15. Registration of UTILITY MODEL (UM) [Secs. 108 109]
a. Application of patent provisions mutatis mutandis
b. Definition/Criteria [Sec. 21, 109.1 (a) and (b)]
Samson v. Tarroza 28 SCRA 792 (1969)

c. Registration
d. [No prior art search, publication, confidentiality, observation by 3
rd
parties, amendment, and
substantive examination (Sec. 109.2)
e. Duration /Renewal of protection (Sec. 109.3)
Ong Shiao Kong v. Director of Patents 58 Phil 68 (1974)

f. Grounds for cancellation ( Sec. 109.4)
g. Conversion of patent/UM applications (Sec. 110)
h. Prohibition against filing of Parallel Application (Sec. 111)
i. Infringement
Del Rosario vs. CA and Janito Corp. 255 SCRA 152 (1996)
16. Registration of INDUSTRIAL DESIGN (ID)
Sec. 112 120, RA 8293 as amended by RA 9150
a. Application of patent provisions mutatis mutandis
b. Definition/Criteria
c. Registration
d. Duration of protection
e. Grounds for cancellation
17. Assignment and transmission of rights, title and interest (Sec. 103-106)
a. Assignment
b. Form
c. Effect of Recording
d. Joint Owners
e. Prior User (Sec. 73.2)
18. Voluntary Licensing
a. Prohibited clauses (Sec. 87)
b. Mandatory clauses (Sec. 88)
c. Jurisdiction of Director of DITTB
to settle disputes on royalties (Sec. 86)
to grant exemptions (Sec. 91)
2014 JRSantiago
4-25-14
7
d. Rights of Licensor/Licensee (Secs. 89 & 90)
e. Effect of non-conformance with Secs. 87 & 88
19. Compulsory Licensing (Secs. 93-102) as amended by RA 9502
Smith Kline & French Laboratories v. CA 368 SCRA 9 (2001)
a. Authority to grant Compulsory Licensing
b. Grounds Compulsory Licensing