t petitioner's patents are void because the utility models
applied for ere not ne and patentable and the person to hom the patents ere issued as not the true and actual author nor ere her ri!hts derived from such author" Petitioner #led a complaint for dama!es ith in$unction and preliminary in$unction a!ainst private respondent ith the then %ourt of &irst Instance of 'i(al The trial court issued an )rder !rantin! the preliminary in$unction prayed for by petitioner" %onse*uently+ the correspondin! rit as subse*uently issued" In challen!in! these )rders private respondent #led a petition for certiorari ith the respondent court but as denied" ,ence this petition" ISS-E: ./0 1hether or not in an action for infrin!ement the %ourt a quo had $urisdiction to determine the invalidity of the patents at issue hich invalidity as still pendin! consideration in the patent o2ce" .30 1hether or not the %ourt a quo committed !rave abuse of discretion in the issuance of a rit of preliminary in$unction" .40 1hether or not certiorari is the proper remedy" ,E5D: /0 The #rst issue has been laid to rest in a number of cases here the %ourt ruled that 61hen a patent is sou!ht to be enforced+ the *uestions of invention+ novelty or prior use+ and each of them+ are open to $udicial e7amination"6 -nder the present Patent 5a+ there is even less reason to doubt that the trial court has $urisdiction to declare the patents in *uestion invalid" A patentee shall have the e7clusive ri!ht to ma8e+ use and sell the patented article or product and the ma8in!+ usin!+ or sellin! by any person ithout the authori(ation of the patentee constitutes infrin!ement of the patent .Sec" 49+ '"A" /:;0" Any patentee hose ri!hts have been infrin!ed upon may brin! an action before the proper %&I no .'T%0 and to secure an in$unction for the protection of his ri!hts" 30 The burden of proof to substantiate a char!e of infrin!ement is ith the plainti<" =ut here the plainti< 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 %ommissioner .no Director0 of Patent in !rantin! the patent is presumed to be correct" The burden of !oin! forard ith the evidence .burden of evidence0 then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this le!al presumption" The *uestion then in the instant case is hether or not the evidence introduced by private respondent herein is su2cient to overcome said presumption" After a careful revie of the evidence consistin! of :> e7hibits and oral testimonies of #ve itnesses presented by private respondents before the %ourt of &irst Instance before the )rder of preliminary in$unction as issued as ell as those presented by the petitioner+ respondent %ourt of Appeals as satis#ed that there is a prima facie shoin! of a fair *uestion of invalidity of petitioner's patents on the !round of lac8 of novelty" As pointed out by said appellate court said evidence appeared not to have been considered at all by the court a quo for alle!ed lac8 of $urisdiction+ on the mista8en notion that such *uestion in ithin the e7clusive $urisdiction of the patent o2ce" It has been repeatedly held that an invention must possess the essential elements of novelty + ori!inality and precedence and for the patentee to be entitled to protection+ the invention must be ne to the orld" Accordin!ly+ a sin!le instance of public use of the invention by a patentee for more than to years .no for more than one year only under Sec" ? of the Patent 5a0 before the date of his application for his patent+ ill be fatal to+ the validity of the patent hen issued" It ill be noted that the validity of petitioner's patents is in *uestion for ant of novelty" Private respondent contends that poder pu<s Identical in appearance ith that covered by petitioner's patents e7isted and ere publicly 8non and used as early as /?:4 lon! before petitioner as issued the patents in *uestion" .5ist of E7hibits+ 'ollo+ pp" /?>@/??0" As correctly observed by respondent %ourt of Appeals+ 6since su2cient proofs have been introduced in evidence shoin! a fair *uestion of the invalidity of the patents issued for such models+ it is but ri!ht that the evidence be loo8ed into+ evaluated and determined on the merits so that the matter of hether the patents issued ere in fact valid or not may be resolved"6 .'ollo+ pp" 3A:@3A90" All these notithstandin!+ the trial court nonetheless issued the rit of preliminary in$unction hich under the circumstances should be denied" &or failure to determine #rst the validity of the patents before aforesaid issuance of the rit+ the trial court failed to satisfy the to re*uisites necessary if an in$unction is to issue+ namely: the e7istence of the ri!ht to be protected and the violation of said ri!ht" .=uayan %attle %o"+ Inc" v" Buintillan+ /3A S%'A 39:0" -nder the above established principles+ it appears obvious that the trial court committed a !rave abuse of discretion hich ma8es certiorari the appropriate remedy" As found by respondent %ourt of Appeals+ the in$unctive order of the trial court is of so !eneral a tenor that petitioner may be totally barred from the sale of any 8ind of poder pu<" -nder the circumstances+ respondent appellate court is of the vie that ordinary appeal is obviously inade*uate" VARGAS v YAPTICO & CO 40 PHIL 195 &A%TS: An!el Car!as+ a farmer ac*uainted ith local conditions and alive to the commercial possibilities+ too8 it upon himself to produce+ ith the native plo as the model+ an improved+ ad$ustable plo" ,e made application for a -nited States patent to cover his so@called invention" The letters patent ere issued by the -nited States Patent )2ce in favor of Car!as "Acerti#ed copy of the patent as #led in the Division of Patents+ %opyri!hts+ and Trademar8s of the E7ecutive =ureau+ Government of the Philippine Islands" The patent and its re!istry as also published in the nespaper+ El Tiempo" Since /?/D+ Car!as has en!a!ed in the manufacture of these plos in the city of Iloilo+ Philippine Islands" )n the plos there as #rst stamped the ords 6Patent Applied &or+6 later after the patent had been !ranted+ chan!ed to 6Patented Ear" /3+ /?/3"6 Ninety per cent of the plos in use in the Cisayas .Iloilo and vicinity0 are said to be Car!as plos" Durin! this same period+ the #rm of &" E" Faptico G %o" .5td"0+ as en!a!ed in the foundry business in the %ity of Iloilo" It openly held itself out as a manufacturer of plo parts" It has in fact produced points+ shares+ shoes+ and heel pieces in a considerable amount adapted to replace orn@ out parts of the Car!as plo" Such as the e7istin! situation hen+ in the early part of /?/A+ the oner of the patent+ and thus the proper party to institute $udicial proceedin!s+ be!an action in the %ourt of &irst Instance of Iloilo to en$oin the alle!ed infrin!ement of -"S" Patent No" /D3D343 by the defendant &" S)TE5)+ ES H / PATENTS: DIGESTS E Faptico G %o" .5td"0+ and to recover the dama!es su<ered by reason of this infrin!ement" The court issued the preliminary in$unction as prayed for" The defendant+ in addition to a !eneral denial+ alle!ed+ as special defenses+ that the patent lac8ed novelty or invention+ that there as no priority of ideas or device in the principle and construction of the plo+ and that the plo+ hose manufacture it as sou!ht to have en$oined by the plainti<+ had already been in public use for more than to years before the application of the plainti< for his patent" The parties subse*uently entered into a stipulation that the court should #rst resolve the *uestion of hether or not there had been an infraction of the patent+ reservin! the resultant *uestion of dama!es for later decision" After the ta8in! of evidence+ includin! the presentation of e7hibits+ the trial $ud!e+ the ,onorable Antonio Cillareal+ in a very e7haustive and learned decision+ rendered $ud!ment in favor of the defendant and a!ainst the plainti<+ declarin! null and ithout e<ect the patent in *uestion and dismissin! the suit ith costs a!ainst the plainti<" The preliminary in$unction theretofore issued as dissolved" &rom this $ud!ment the plainti< has appealed" ISS-E: ./0 The $ud!ment of the trial court in #ndin! the patent !ranted plainti< void for lac8 of novelty and invention should be a2rmedI .30 The patent !ranted plainti< is void from the public use of his plo for over to years prior to his application for a patent+ and .40 If the patent is valid+ there has been no contributory infrin!ement by defendant" ,E5D: ./0 1hen a patent is sou!ht to be enforced+ 6the *uestion of invention+ novelty+ or prior use+ and each of them+ are open to $udicial e7amination"6 The burden of proof to substantiate a char!e of infrin!ement is ith the plainti<" 1here+ hoever+ the plainti< introduces the patent in evidence+ if it is in due form+ it a<ords a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity" The decision of the %ommissioner of Patents in !rantin! the patent is alays presumed to be correct" The burden then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this le!al presumption "1ith all due respect+ therefore+ for the critical and e7pert e7amination of the invention by the -nited States Patent )2ce+ the *uestion of the validity of the patent is one for $udicial determination+ and since a patent has been submitted+ the e7act *uestion is hether the defendant has assumed the burden of proof as to anyone of his defenses As herein before stated+ the defendant relies on three special defenses" )ne such defense+ on hich the $ud!ment of the loer court is principally !rounded+ and to hich appellant devotes the ma$or portion of his vi!orous ar!ument+ concerns the element of novelty+ invention+ or discovery+ that !ives e7istence to the ri!ht to a patent" )n this point the trial court reached the conclusion that 6the patented plo of the plainti<+ E7hibit D+ is not di<erent from the native plo+ E7hibit 3+ e7cept in the material+ in the form+ in the ei!ht and the !rade of the result+ the said di<erences !ivin! it neither a ne function nor a ne result distinct from the function and the result obtained from the native ploI conse*uently+ its production does not presuppose the e7ercise of the inventive faculty but merely of mechanical s8ill+ hich does not !ive a ri!ht to a patent of an invention under the provisions of the Patent 5a"6 In thus #ndin!+ the court may have been ri!ht+ since the Car!as plo does not appear to be such a 6combination6 as contains a novel assembla!e of parts e7hibitin! invention" A second line of defense relates to the fact that defendant has never made a complete Car!as plo+ but only points+ shares+ shoes+ and heel pieces+ to serve as repairs" Defendant's contention is+ that in common ith other foundries+ he has for years cast lar!e numbers of plo points and shares suitable for use either on the native ooden plo+ or on the Car!as plo" A di<erence has lon! been reco!ni(ed beteen repairin! and reconstructin! a machine" If+ for instance+ partial in$uries+ hether they occur from accident or from ear and tear+ to a machine for a!ricultural purposes+ are made this is only re@#ttin! the machine for use+ and thus permissible" Even under the more ri!orous doctrine of 5eeds G %atlin %o" vs" Cictor Tal8in! Eachine %o" .J/?D?K+ 3/4 -"S"+ 43;0+ it may be possible that all the defendant has done is to manufacture and sell isolated parts to be used to replace orn@out parts" The third defense is+ that under the provisions of the statute+ an inventor's creation must not have been in public use or on sale in the -nited States .and the Philippine Islands0 for more than to years prior to his application "1ithout+ therefore+ committin! ourselves as to the #rst to defenses+ e propose to base our decision on the one $ust su!!ested as more easily disposin! of the case" .See 3D '" %" 5"+ //>D@//>3"0 1e do so ith full consciousness of the doubt hich arose in the mind of the trial court+ but ith the belief that since it has been shon that the invention as used in public at Iloilo by others than Car!as+ the inventor+ more than to years before the application for the patent+ the patent is invalid" Althou!h e have spent some time in arrivin! at this point+ yet havin! reached it+ the *uestion in the case is sin!le and can be brou!ht to a narro compass" -nder the En!lish Statute of Eonopolies .3/ Lac" %h"+ 40+ and under the -nited States Patent Act of &ebruary 3/+ /9?4+ later amended to be as herein *uoted+ it as alays the rule+ as stated by 5ord %o8e+ Lustice Story and other authorities+ that to entitle a man to a patent+ the invention must be ne to the orld" As said by the -nited States Supreme %ourt+ 6it has been repeatedly held by this court that a single instance of public use of the invention by a patentee for more than to years before the date of his application for his patent will be fatal to the validity of the patent hen issued"6 )n the facts+ e thin8 the testimony shos such a public use of the Car!as plo as to render the patent invalid Nicolas 'oces+ a farmer+ testi#ed that he had bou!ht tenty Car!as plos+ of hich E7hibit ; as one+ in December+ /?D9I and E7hibit ;+ the court found+ as a plo completely identical ith that for hich the plainti< had received a patent" The minor e7ception+ and this in itself corroborative of 'oces' testimony+ is that the handle of plo E7hibit ; is mar8ed ith the letters 6A C6 and not ith the ords 6Patent Applied &or6 or 6Patented Ear"/3+ /?/3"6 Salvador 5i(arra!a+ a cler8 in a business house+ testi#ed that he had received plos similar to E7hibits D+ ;+ and >+ for sale on commission on Eay+ /?DA+ from =onifacio Araneta+ partner of Car!as in the plo business" Mo Pao Mo+ a blac8smith+ testi#ed that he had made #fty plo frames in /?D; for Car!as and Araneta+ of hich E7hibit > is oneI E7hibit >+ the court found+ is a plo identical ith that patented by Car!as+ but ithout share and mould@board" Alfred =erin+ an employee in the o2ce of Attorney Lohn =ordman+ testi#ed that on September 3/+ /?DA+ he had 8noled!e of a transaction herein Car!as and Araneta desired to obtain money to invest in a plo factory" Geor!e 'amon Saul+ a mechanic of the 6Taller Cisayas6 of Strachan and EacEurray+ testi#ed that he had made Car!as plo points and shares of the present form upon order of Araneta and Car!as in /?D: and /?D9 "1illiam S)TE5)+ ES H 3 PATENTS: DIGESTS EacEurray+ proprietor of the 6Taller Cisayas+6 corroborated the evidence of the itness Saul by the e7hibition of the account a!ainst Car!as and Araneta herein+ under date of December /4+ /?D:+ appears the item 6/3 ne soft steel plo shares for!ed and bored for rivets as per sample"6 A!ainst all this+ as the testimony of the plainti< An!el Car!as ho denied that Saul could have been seen the Car!as plo in /?D9 and /?D9+ ho denied that 'oces purchased the Car!as plo in /?D9+ ho denied that 5i(arra!a could have acted as an a!ent to sell to plos in November+ /?DA+ ho denied any remembrance of the loan mentioned by =erin as havin! been ne!otiated in September+ /?DA+ ho denied that Mo Pao Mo made #fty plos one of hich is E7hibit >+ for Araneta and Car!as in /?D;" Plainti< introduced his boo8s to substantiate his oral testimony "It is hardly believable that #ve or si7 itnesses for the defense ould deliberately per$ure themselves under oath" )ne mi!ht+ but that all to!ether+ of di<erent nationalities+ ould enter into such a conspiracy+ is to suppose the improbable" Tested by the principles hich !o to ma8e the la+ e thin8 a preponderance of the evidence is to the e<ect that for more than to years before the application for the ori!inal letters patent+ or before Luly 33+ /?DA+ there as+ by the consent and alloance of Car!as+ a public use of the invention covered by them" To conclude+ e are not certain but that appellee has proved every one of his defenses" 1e are certain that he has at least demonstrated the public use of the Car!as plo over to years prior to the application for a patent" Such bein! the case+ althou!h on a di<erent !round+ e must sustain the $ud!ment of the loer court+ ithout pre$udice to the determination of the dama!es resultin! from the !rantin! of the in$unction+ ith the costs of this instance a!ainst the appellant" So ordered" FRANK v KOSUYAMA 59 PHIL 206 &A%TS: Patent on improvement in hemp strippin! machines+ issued by the -nited States Patent )2ce and re!istered in the =ureau of %ommerce and Industry of the Philippine+ as the ori!in of this action brou!ht by the plainti<s herein ho prayed that the $ud!ment be rendered a!ainst the defendant+ orderin! him thereby to refrain immediately from the manufacture and sale of machines similar to the one covered by the patent: to render an accountin! of the pro#ts reali(ed from the manufacture and sale of the machines in *uestionI that in case of refusal or failure to render such accountin!+ the defendants be ordered to pay the plainti<s the sum of P:D as pro#t on each machine manufactured or sold by himI that upon approval of the re*uired bond+ said defendant be restrained from continuin! the manufacture and sale of the same 8ind of machinesI that after the trial the preliminary in$unction issued therein be declared permanent and+ lastly+ that the said defendant be sentenced to pay the costs and hatever dama!es the plainti<s mi!ht be able to prove therein" The action therefore as based upon alle!ed infrin!ement by the defendant of the ri!hts and privile!es ac*uired by the plainti<s over the aforesaid patent throu!h the manufacture and sale by the former of machines similar to that covered by the aforesaid patent" The plainti<s appealed from the $ud!ment rendered by the trial court dismissin! their complaint+ ith cost+ as ell as the defendant's counterclaim of P/D+DDD" The defendant did not appeal" In their amended complaint+ the plainti< alle!ed that their hemp strippin! machines+ for hich they obtained a patent+ have the folloin! characteristics: 6A strippin! head+ a hori(ontal table+ a strippin! 8nife supported upon such table+ a tapperin! spindle+ a rest holder ad$ustably secured on the table portion+ a lever and means of compellin! the 8nife to close upon the table+ a pallet or rest in the bottom of the table+ a resilient cushion under such palletor rest"6 In spite of the fact that they #led an amended complaint from hich the 6spindle6 or conical drum+ hich as the only characteristic feature of the machine mentioned in the ori!inal complaint+ as eliminated+ the plainti<s insisted that the said part constitutes the essential di<erence beteen the machine in *uestion and other machines and that it as the principal consideration upon hich their patent as issued" The said plainti<s sustained their contention on this point even in their printed brief and memorandum #led in this appeal" Durin! the trial+ both parties presented voluminous evidence from hich the trial court concluded that in constructin! their machine the plainti<s did nothin! but improve+ to a certain de!ree+ those that ere already in vo!ue and in actual us in hemp producin! provinces" It cannot be said that they have invented the 6spindle6 inasmuch as this as already 8non since the year /?D? or /?/D" Neither it can be said that they have invented the strippin! 8nife and the contrivance hich controls the movement and pressure thereof on the !round that strippin! 8nives to!ether ith their control sets ere already in actual use in the di<erent strippin! machines lon! before their machine appeared" ISS-E: 1hether there is an infrin!ement on the patents ,E5D: The trial court did not decree the annulment of the plainti<s' patent and the herein defendant@appellee insists that the patent in *uestion should be declared null and void" 1e are of the opinion that it ould be improper and untimely to render a similar $ud!ment+ in vie of the nature of the action brou!ht by the plainti<s and in the absence of a cross@complaint to that e<ect" &or the purposes of this appeal+ su2ce it to hold that the defendant is not civilly liable for alle!ed infrin!ement of the patent in *uestion" In the li!ht of sound lo!ic+ the plainti<s cannot insist that the 6spindle6 as a patented invention on the !round that said part of the machine as voluntarily omitted by them from their application+ as evidenced by the photo!raphic copy thereof .E7hibit >/0 herein it li8eise appears that the patent on Improved ,emp Strippin! Eachines as issued minus the 6spindle6 in *uestion" 1ere e to stress to this part of the machine+ e ould be !ivin! the patent obtained by the plainti<s a ider ran!e than it actually has+ hich is contrary to the principles of interpretation in matters relatin! to patents" In support of their claim the plainti<s invo8e the doctrine laid don by this court in the case of &ran8 and Gohn vs. =enito .;/ Phil"+ 9/30+ herein it as held that the therein defendant really infrin!ed upon the patent of the therein plainti<s" It may be noted that the plainti<s in the former and those of the latter case are the same and that the patent then involved is the very same one upon hich the present action of the plainti<s is based" The above@cited case+ hoever+ cannot be invo8ed as a precedent to $ustify a $ud!ment in favor of the plainti<s@appellants on the !round that the facts in one case entirely di<erent from those in the other" In the former case the defendant did not set up the same special defenses as those alle!ed by the herein defendant in his anser and the plainti<s therein con#ned themselves to presentin! the patent+ or rather a copy thereof+ herein the 6spindle6 as mentioned+ and this court S)TE5)+ ES H 4 PATENTS: DIGESTS too8 for !ranted their claim that it as one of the essential characteristics thereof hich as imitated or copied by the then defendant" Thus it came to pass that the 6spindle6 in *uestion as insistently mentioned in the decision rendered on appeal as the essential part of the plainti<s' machine alle!edly imitated by the then defendant" In the case under consideration+ it is obvious that the 6spindle6 is not an inte!ral part of the machine patented by the plainti<s on the !round that it as eliminated from their patent inasmuch as it as e7pressly e7cluded in their application+ as evidenced by the aforesaid E7hibit >/" 1herefore+ reiteratin! that the defendant cannot be held civilly liable for alle!ed infrin!ement of the patent upon hich the present action is based on the !round that there is no essential part of the machine manufactured and sold by him+ hich as un8non to the public in the Province of Davao at the time the plainti<s applied for and obtained their patent for improved hemp strippin! machines+ the $ud!ment appealed from is hereby a2rmed+ ith the costs a!ainst the plainti<s@appellants" So ordered" VARGAS v CHUA 57 PHIL 784 &A%TS: An!el Car!as+ the plainti< herein+ brou!ht this action to restrain the appellants and the other defendant entity+ %ham Samco G Sons+ their a!ents and mandatories+ from continuin! the manufacture and sale of plos similar to his plo described in his patent No" /+;D9+;4D issued by the -nited States Patent )2ce on September 3+ /?3>I and to compel all of said defendants+ after renderin! an accountin! of the pro#ts obtained by them from the sale of said plos from September 3+ /?3>+ to pay him dama!es e*uivalent to double the amount of such pro#ts" The trial court rendered a $ud!ement in favor of plainti<s and a!ainst the defendant" It appears from the bill of e7ceptions that %ham Samco G Sons did not appeal" ISS-E: 1hether the plo+ E7hibit &+ constitutes a real invention or an improvement for hich a patent may be obtained+ or if+ on the contrary+ it is substantially the same plo represented by E7hibit 4@%hua the patent for hich as declared null and void in the aforementioned case of Vargas vs. F. M. Yaptico !o." supra. ,E5D: The appellee is not entitled to the protection he see8s for the simple reason that his plo+ E7hibit &+ does not constitute an invention in the le!al sense+ and because+ accordin! to the evidence+ the same type of plos had been manufactured in this country and had been in use in many parts of the Philippine Archipela!o+ especially in the Province of Iloilo+ lon! before he obtained his last patent" In the above mentioned case of Vargas vs. F. M. Yaptico !o." e said: 1hen a patent is sou!ht to be enforced+ 6the *uestions of invention+ novelty+ or prior use+ and each of them+ are open to $udicial e7amination"6 The burden of proof to substantiate a char!e of infrin!ement is ith the plainti<" 1here+ hoever+ the plainti< introduces the patent in evidence+ if it is the due form+ it a<ords a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity" The decision of the %ommissioner of Patents in !rantin! the patent is alays presumed to be correct" The burden then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this le!al presumption" 1ith all due respects+ therefore+ for the critical and e7pert e7amination of the invention by the -nited States Patent )2ce+ the *uestion of the validity of the patent is one for $udicial determination+ and since a patent has been submitted+ the e7act *uestion is hether the defendant has assumed the burden of proof as to anyone of his defenses" 1e repeat that in vie of the evidence presented+ and particularly of the e7amination e have made of the plos+ e cannot escape the conclusion that the plo upon hich the appellee's contention is based+ does not constitute an invention and+ conse*uently+ the privile!e invo8ed by him is untenable and the patent ac*uired by him should be declared ine<ective" The $ud!ment appealed from is hereby reversed and the appellants are absolved from the complaint+ ith costs of this instance a!ainst the appellee" So ordered" AGUAS v D LON 111 SCRA 2!8 &A%TS: %onrado G" de 5eon #led in the %ourt of &irst Instance of 'i(al at Bue(on %ity a complaint for infrin!ement of patent a!ainst Domiciano A" A!uas and &" ," A*uino and Sons alle!in! that bein! the ori!inal #rst and sole inventor of certain ne and useful improvements in the process of ma8in! mosaic pre@cast tiles+ he lafully #led and prosecuted an application for Philippine patent+ and havin! complied in all respects ith the statute and the rules of the Philippine Patent )2ce+ Patent No" :;A as lafully !ranted and issued to himI that said invention as ne+ useful+ not 8non or used by others in this country before his invention thereof" That the defendant Domiciano A" A!uas infrin!ed 5etters of Patent No" :;A by ma8in!+ usin! and sellin! tiles embodyin! said patent invention and that defendant &" ," A*uino G Sons is !uilty of infrin!ement by ma8in! and furnishin! to the defendant Domiciano A" A!uas the en!ravin!s+ castin!s and devices desi!ned and intended of tiles embodyin! plainti<Is patented inventionI that he has !iven direct and personal notice to the defendants of their said acts of infrin!ement and re*uested them to desist+ but nevertheless+ defendants have refused and ne!lected to desist and have disre!arded such re*uest+ and continue to so infrin!e causin! !reat and irreparable dama!e to plainti<I that if the aforesaid infrin!ement is permitted to continue+ further losses and dama!es and irreparable in$ury ill be sustained by the plainti<I that there is an ur!ent need for the immediate issuance of a preliminary in$unction" The court !ranted the in$unction" And li8eise held in favor of the plainti< and a!ainst the defendant" ISS-E: 1hether the process+ sub$ect of said patent+ is not an invention or discovery+ or an improvement of the old system of ma8in! tiles" ,E5D: The validily of the patent issued by the Philippines Patent )2ce in favor of the private respondent and the *uestion over the inventiveness+ novelty and usefulness of the improved process therein speci#ed and described are matters hich are better determined by the Philippines Patent )2ce" The technical sta< of the Philippines Patent )2ce+ composed of e7perts in their #eld+ have+ by the issuance of the patent in *uestion+ accepted the thinness of the private respondent's ne tiles as a discovery" There is a presumption that the Philippines Patent )2ce has correctly determined the patentability of the improvement by the private respondent of the process in *uestion" S)TE5)+ ES H > PATENTS: DIGESTS The contention of the petitioner A!uas that the letters patent of de 5eon as actually a patent for the old and non@patentable process of ma8in! mosaic pre@cast tiles is devoid of merit" De 5eon never claimed to have invented the process of tile@ma8in!" The %laims and Speci#cations of Patent No" :;A sho that althou!h some of the steps or parts of the old process of tile ma8in! ere described therein+ there ere novel and inventive features mentioned in the process" In vie of the fore!oin!+ this %ourt #nds that Patent No" :;A as le!ally issued+ the process andNor improvement bein! patentable" PA'ME DACIS G %) v D)%T)'OS P,A'EA /3> S%'A //; &A%TS: Par8e Davis G %ompany+ petitioner herein+ is a forei!n corporation is the oner of a patent entitled 6Process for the Eanufacturin! of Antibiotics6 .5etters Patent No" ;D0 The patent relates to a chemical compound represented by a formula commonly called chloramphenicol" The patent contains ten claims+ nine of hich are process claims+ and the other is a product claim to the chemical substance chloramphenicol" 'espondent Doctors' Pharmaceuticals+ Inc"+ on the other hand+ is a domestic corporation hich applied for a petition ith the Director of Patents+ hich as later amended+ prayin! that it be !ranted a compulsory license under 5etters Patent No" ;D !ranted to Par8e Davis G %ompany based on the folloin! !rounds: ./0 the patented invention relates to medicine and is necessary for public health and safetyI .30 Par8e Davis G %ompany is unillin! to !rant petitioner a voluntary license under said patent by reason of hich the production and manufacture of needed medicine containin! chloramphenicol has been unduly restrained to a certain e7tent that it is becomin! a monopolyI .40 the demand for medicine containin! chloramphenicol is not bein! met to an ade*uate e7tent and on reasonable pricesI and .>0 the patented invention is not bein! or8ed in the Philippines on a commercial scale" In its petition+ Doctors' Pharmaceuticals+ Inc" prayed that it be authori(ed to manufacture+ use+ and sell its on products containin! chloramphenicol as ell as choose its on brand or trademar8" Par8e Davis G %ompany #led a ritten opposition settin! up the folloin! a2rmative defenses: ./0 a compulsory license may only be issued to one ho ill or8 the patent and respondent does not intend to or8 it itself but merely to import the patented productI .30 respondent has not re*uested any license to or8 the patented invention in the PhilippinesI .40 respondent is not competent to or8 the patented inventionI .>0 to !rant respondent the re*uested license ould be a!ainst public interest and ould only serve its monetary interestI and .:0 the patented invention is not necessary for public health and safety" the Director of Patents rendered a decision !rantin! to respondent the license prayed for ",ence this petition" ISS-E: 1hether or not the Director of Patents erred $n orderin! the !rant of compulsory license ,E5D: Each of the circumstances mentioned in the la as !rounds stands alone and is independent of the others" And from them e can see that in order that any person may be !ranted a license under a particular patented invention relatin! to medicine under Section 4>.d0+ it is su2cient that the application be made after the e7piration of three years from the date of the !rant of the patent and that the Director should #nd that a case for !rantin! such license has been made out" Since in the instant case it is admitted by petitioner that the chemical substance chloramphenicol is a medicine+ hile 5etters Patent No" ;D coverin! said substance ere !ranted to Par8e Davis G %ompany on &ebruary ?+ /?;D+ and the instant application for license under said patent as only #led in /?:D+ verily the period that had elapsed then is more than three years+ and so the conditions for the !rant of the license had been ful#lled" 1e #nd+ therefore+ no error in the decision of the Director of Patents on this aspect of the controversy" S)TE5)+ ES H ;