Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. The whole contents of a published application, filed or having regard to prior art, it is not obvious to a person
Exception: In the case of drugs and medicines, there is no 3. Layout design/topography The three dimensional
inventive step if the invention results from the mere disposition, however expressed, of the elements, at
discovery of a new form or new property of a known least one of which is an active element, and of some
substance which does not result in the enhancement of the or all of the interconnections of an integrated
known efficacy of that substance. (Sec. 26.2, as amended by circuit, or such a threedimensional disposition
R.A. 9502) prepared for an integrated circuit intended for
manufacture. Registration is valid for 10 years
What is the test of nonobviousness? without renewal counted from date of
commencement of protection.
If any person possessing ordinary skill in the art was able to
draw the inferences and the constructs that the supposed 4. Utility model A name given to inventions in the
inventor drew from prior art, then the latter did not really mechanical field
invent.
When does an invention qualify as a utility model?
Who is considered a person of ordinary skill?
A person who is presumed to: If it is new and industrially applicable. A model of implement
1. Be an ordinary practitioner aware of what was or tools of any industrial product even if not possessed of
common general knowledge in the art at the the quality of invention but which is of practical utility. (Sec.
relevant date. 109.1, IPC)
2. Have knowledge of all references that are
sufficiently related to one another and to the
pertinent art and to have knowledge of all arts What is the term of a utility model?
reasonably pertinent to the particular problems
with which the inventor was involved. 7 years from date of filing of the application (Sec. 109.3,
3. Have had at his disposal the normal means and IPC).
capacity for routine work and experimentation.
(Rules and Regulations on Inventions, Rule 207)
NON-PATENTABLE INVENTIONS SEC. 22
Q: What are other forms of patentable inventions? What are not patentable inventions?
DDS-APAC
1. Industrial design Any composition of lines or 1. Discoveries, scientific theories and
colors or any threedimensional form, whether or mathematical methods
not associated with lines or colors. Provided that 2. In the case of Drugs and medicines, mere
such composition or form gives a special discovery of a new form or new property of
appearance to and can serve as pattern for an a known substance which does not result in
industrial product or handicraft. (Sec. 112, IPC) the enhancement of the efficacy of that
substance
Note: Generally speaking, an industrial design is the 3. Schemes, rules and methods of performing
ornamental or aesthetic aspect of a useful article. (Vicente mental acts, playing games or doing
Amador, Intellectual Property Fundamentals, 2007) business, and programs for computers
4. Methods for treatment of the human or
Animal body
5. Plant varieties or animal breeds or
2. Integrated circuit A product, in its final form, or an
essentially biological process for the
intermediate form, in which the elements, at least
production of plants or animals. This
one of which is an active elements and some of all
provision shall not apply to microorganisms
of the interconnections are integrally formed in and
2
Page
Q: Are computer programs patentable? Cheche invented a device that can convert rainwater into
automobile fuel. She asked Macon, a lawyer, to assist in
General Rule: Computer programs are not patentable but getting her invention patented. Macon suggested that
are copyrightable. they form a corporation with other friends and have the
Exception: They can be patentable if they are part of a corporation apply for the patent, 80% of the shares of
process (e.g. business process with a step involving the use stock thereof to be subscribed by Cheche and 5% by
of a computer program). Macon. The corporation was formed and the patent
application was filed. However, Cheche died 3 months
OWNERSHIP OF A PATENT
later of a heart attack. Franco, the estranged husband of
Cheche, contested the application of the corporation and
Q: Who is entitled to a patent?
filed his own patent application as the sole surviving heir
of Cheche. Decide the issue with reasons.
1. Inventor, his heirs, or assigns.
2. Joint invention Jointly by the inventors. (Sec. 28, The estranged husband of Cheche cannot successfully
IPC) contest the application. The right over inventions accrue
3. 2 or more persons invented separately and from the moment of creation and as a right it can lawfully
independently of each other To the person who be assigned. Once the title thereto is vested in the
filed an application; transferee, the latter has the right to apply for its
4. 2 or more applications are filed the applicant registration. The estranged husband of Cheche, if not
who has the earliest filing date or, the earliest disqualified to inherit, merely would succeed to the interest
priority date. First to file rule. (Sec. 29, IPC) of Cheche. (1990 Bar Question)
5. Inventions created pursuant to a commission
Person who commissions the work, unless Who may apply for a patent?
otherwise provided in the contract. (Sec. 30.1,
IPC) Any person who is a national or who is domiciled or has a
6. Employee made the invention in the course of his real and effective industrial establishment in a country
employment contract: which is a party to any convention, treaty or agreement
a. The employee, if the inventive activity is not relating to intellectual property rights or the repression of
a part of his regular duties even if the unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party,
employee uses the time, facilities and or extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines
materials of the employer. by law. (Sec. 3, IPC)
b. The employer, if the invention is the result
of the performance of his regularly
assigned duties, unless there is an
Inventions Created Pursuant to a Commission
agreement, express or implied, to the
contrary. (Sec. 30.2, IPC)
Who shall own the patent worked on a commission?
RIGHT OF PRIORITY
PATENT REGISTRATION PROCESS AND
What is priority date? REQUIREMENTS
An application for patent filed by any person who has What are the steps in the registration of a
previously applied for the same invention in another patent? FAFC-PSG-PI
country which by treaty, convention, or law affords similar
privileges to Filipino citizens, shall be considered as filed as The procedure for the grant of patent may be summarized
of the date of filing the foreign application. (Sec. 31, IPC) as follows:
1. Filing of the application
What are the conditions in availing of priority date? 2. Accordance of the filing date
3. Formality examination
1. The local application expressly claims priority; 4. Classification and Search
2. It is filed within 12 months from the date the 5. Publication of application
earliest foreign application was filed; and 6. Substantive examination
3. A certified copy of the foreign application 7. Grant of Patent
together with an English translation is filed 8. Publication upon grant
within 6 months from the date of filing in the 9. Issuance of certificate (Salao, Essentials of
Philippines. (Sec. 31, IPC) Intellectual Property Law: a Guidebook on
Republic Act No. 8293 and Related Laws.,
Leonard and Marvin applied for Letters Patent claiming 2008)
the right of priority granted to foreign applicants. Receipt
of petitioners application was acknowledged by What are the contents of Patent Application?
respondent Director on March 6, 1954. Their Application A patent application shall contain:
for Letters Patent in the US for the same invention 1. A request for the grant of patent;
indicated that the application in the US was filed on March 2. A description of the invention (Disclosure)
16, 1953. They were advised that the "Specification" they 3. Drawings necessary for the
had submitted was "incomplete" and that responsive understanding of the invention;
action should be filed with them four months from date of 4. One or more claims
mailing, which was August 5, 1959. On July 3, 1962, 5. An abstract (Sec. 32)
petitioners submitted two complete copies of the
Specification. Director of patents held that petitioners' How is disclosure made?
application may not be treated as filed. Is the director
correct? The application shall disclose the invention in a manner
sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a
Yes, it is imperative that the application be complete in person skilled in the art.
order that it may be accepted. It is essential to the validity
4
of Letters Patent that the specifications be full, definite, and What is a claim?
Page
What is the concept of divisional applications? What are the grounds for the cancellation of
Divisional applications come into play when two or more patents? NDCI
inventions are claimed in a single application but are of 1. The invention is Not new or patentable;
such a nature that a single patent may not be issued for 2. The patent does not Disclose the invention
them. The applicant, is thus required to divide, that is, to in a manner sufficiently clear and complete
limit the claims to whichever invention he may elect, for it to be carried out by any person skilled
whereas those inventions not elected may be made the in the art; or
subject of separate applications which are called 3. Contrary to public order or morality.(Sec.
divisional applications. (SmithKline Beckman Corp. v. 61.1, IPC)
CA, GR No. 126627, Aug. 14,2003) 4. Patent is found Invalid in an action for
infringement (Sec. 82, IPC)
What are the rights conferred by a patent application after
the first publication? Where is it filed?
1. Bureau of Legal Affairs if violation of IPC
A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive (Administrative)
rights: 2. Regional Trial Courtt- other cases
(a) Where the subject matter of a patent is a product, What if the ground/s for cancellation relate to some of the
to restrain, prohibit and prevent any unauthorized
claims or parts of the claim only?
person or entity from making, using, offering for
sale, selling or importing that product;
Cancellation may be effected to such extent only.
(b) Where the subject matter of a patent is a process, (Sec. 61.2, IPC)
to restrain, prevent or prohibit any unauthorized
person or entity from using the process, and from What are the grounds for cancellation of a utility
manufacturing, dealing in, using, selling or offering model?
for sale, or importing any product obtained directly
or indirectly from such process.
1. The invention does not qualify for registration as a
utility model
2. That the description and the claims do not comply
Note: That the action may not be filed until after the grant of
a patent on the published application and within four (4) years with the prescribed requirements
from the commission of the acts complained of (Sec. 46, IPC). 3. Any drawing which is necessary for the
understanding of the invention has not been
5
4) Reverse reciprocity of foreign law Any condition, 2. Regional exhaustion allows the possibility of
restriction, limitation, diminution, requirement, penalty importing into the national territory a patented
or any similar burden imposed by the law of a foreign product originating from any other member state of a
country on a Philippine national seeking protection of regional trade agreement.
intellectual
Also known as the doctrine of first sale, it provides that the PATENT INFRINGEMENT
7
Page
1. Civil action for infringement The owner may 2. Any foreign national or juridical entity who meets
bring a civil action with the appropriate Regional the requirements of Sec. 3 and not engaged in
Trial Court to recover from infringer the damages business in the Philippines, to which a patent has
sustained by the former, plus attorneys fees and been granted or assigned, whether or not it is
other litigation expenses, and to secure an licensed to do business in the Philippines. (Sec. 77,
injunction for the protection of his rights. IPC)
FACTS: Petitioner MANOLO P. SAMSON was accused of What are the tests in patent infringement?
unfair competition for violation of Intellectual Property 1. Literal infringement Test Resort must be had, in
Code of the Philippine for unlawfully selling CATERPILLAR the first instance, to words of the claim. If the
products which are closely identical to and colorable accused matter clearly falls within the claim,
imitations of the authentic Caterpillar.
infringement is committed.
Petitioner moved to quash the information on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense Minor modifications are sufficient to put the item
charged in the Information. He argued that IPC provides beyond literal infringement. (Godines v. CA, G.R.
that the penalty for violation of Section 168 thereof is
No. L97343, Sept. 13, 1993)
imprisonment from two (2) to five (5) years and a fine
ranging from fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), and under R.A. No. 2. Doctrine of Equivalents There is infringement
7691, Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC) exclusive original where a device appropriates a prior invention by
jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment incorporating its innovative concept and,
not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of the although with some modification and change,
fine. Motion wa denied. performs substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent RTC has jurisdiction substantially the same result. (Ibid.)
HELD: Yes. Section 163 of of R.A. No. 8293, which took 3. Economic interest test when the process
effect on January 1, 1998, states that actions (including
discoverers economic interest are compromised,
criminal and civil) under Sections 150, 155, 164, 166, 167,
168 and 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with i.e., when others can import the products that
appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws. result from the process, such an act is said to be
9
prohibited.
Page
1. Voluntary licensing (Sec. 85, IPC) and due to reason(s) attributable to the licensee;
Page
3. In the event the technology transfer arrangement the Philippines on a commercial scale, although
Page
shall provide for arbitration, the Procedure of capable of being worked, without satisfactory
In the light of its discoveries, Pearl and Dean sent a letter (4) "Poster Ads" is a general term that cannot be associated
to both SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the specifically to Pearl and Dean, thus it cannot be considered
subject light boxes and to remove the same from SMIs to use such term to be unfair competition against the
establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use of petitioner.
the trademark Poster Ads, and the payment to Pearl and
Dean of compensatory damages in the amount of ROSARIO C. MAGUAN vs. CA and SUSANA LUCHAN
P20million. G.R. No. L-45101. November 28, 1986.
Novelty as requisite for patentability)
Upon receipt of the demand letter, SMI suspended the
14
(1) at the time of filing of application for the patents Thus it is generally held that in patent cases a preliminary
involved, the utility models applied for were not new and injunction will not issue for patent infringement unless the
patentable under Sec. 55 of R.A. 165, as amended by R.A. validity of the patent is clear and beyond question. The
864; and issuance of letters patent, standing alone, is not sufficient
to support such drastic relief. In cases of infringement of
patent no preliminary injunction will be granted unless the
(2) the person to whom the patents were issued was not
patent is valid and infringed beyond question and the
the true and actual author of the utility models applied for,
record conclusively proves the defense is sham.
and neither did she derive her rights from any true and
actual author of these utility models.for the following
reasons:
Domiciano Aguas Vs. Conrado G. De Leon And CA
(a) since years prior to the filing of applications for the
G.R. No. L-32160. January 30, 1982
patents involved, powder puffs of the kind applied
(Patentability)
for were then already existing and publicly being
sold in the market; both in the Philippines and
abroad; and On April 14, 1962, Conrado G. de Leon filed in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City a complaint for
(b) applicant's claims in her applications, of infringement of patent against Domiciano A. Aguas and F.
"construction" or process of manufacturing the H. Aquino and Sons alleging that he is the original first and
utility models applied for, with respect to UM-423
sole inventor of certain new and useful improvements in
and UM-450, were but a complicated and
the process of making mosaic pre-cast tiles. He lawfully filed
impractical version of an old, simple one which has
been well known to the cosmetics industry since and prosecuted an application for Philippine patent, and
years previous to her filing of applications, and having complied in all respects with the statute and the
which belonged to no one except to the general rules of the Philippine Patent Office, Patent No. 658 was
public; and with respect to UM1184; her claim in lawfully granted and issued to him. Defendant Domiciano A.
her application of a unitary powder puff, was but an Aguas infringed Letters of Patent No. 658 by making, using
limitation of a product well known to the cosmetics
and selling tiles embodying said patent invention and that
industry since years previous to her firing of
application, and which belonged to no one except defendant F. H. Aquino & Sons is guilty of infringement by
to the general public; (Answer, Rollo, pp. 93-94). making and furnishing to the defendant Domiciano A. Aguas
the engravings, castings and devices designed and intended
ISSUE: Whether or not the patent of petitioner is valid. of tiles embodying plaintiffs patented invention.
HELD: No. Respondent CA was satisfied that there is a prima In defense, questioned the validity of the patent of the
15
facie showing of a fair question of invalidity of petitioner's private respondent, Conrado G. de Leon, on the ground that
patents on the ground of lack of novelty. the process, subject of said patent, is not an invention or
Page
water, while in ceramics fire is used. As regards the Albendazole inheres in petitioners patent in spite of
Page
allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent its omission therefrom or that the meaning of the
LAW ON INTELECTUAL PROPERTY
Compilation | Reviewer and Digests
San Beda College of Law Manila johnicalia
claims of the patent embraces the same. While both determined, not by the names of things, but in the light of
compounds have the effect of neutralizing parasites what elements do, and substantial, rather than technical,
in animals, identity of result does not amount to identity in the test. More specifically, it is necessary and
sufficient to constitute equivalency that the same function
infringement of patent unless Albendazole operates
can be performed in substantially the same way or manner,
in substantially the same way or by substantially the or by the same or substantially the same, principle or mode
same means as the patented compound, even though of operation; but where these tests are satisfied, mere
it performs the same function and achieves the same differences of form or name are immaterial.
result.
To establish an infringement, it is not essential to show that
the defendant adopted the device or process in every
particular; Proof of an adoption of the substance of the
Pascual Godines Vs CA and Sv-Agro thing will be sufficient.
G.R. No. 97343. September 13, 1993
(Doctrine of Equivalents) Smith Kline & French Lab Ltd., vs CA And Danlex Research
Laboratories, Inc
FACTS: SVAgro Industries Enterprises, Inc., holder of patent G.R. No. 121267. October 23, 2001
for a utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller, suffered (Compulsory Licensing)
a decline of more than 50% in sales in its Molave,
Zamboanga del Sur branch. Upon investigation, it
discovered that power tillers similar to those patented by FACTS: Petitioner is the assignee of Letters Patent No.
private respondent were being manufactured and sold by 12207 covering the pharmaceutical product Cimetidine,
petitioner herein, Pascual Godines. Consequently, SVAgro which relates to derivatives of heterocyclicthio or lower
informed Pascual Godines about the existing patent and alkoxy or amino lower alkyl thiourea, ureas or guanadines.
demanded that the latter stop selling and manufacturing
similar power tillers. Upon petitioner's failure to comply Private respondent filed with the BPTTT a petition for
with the demand, SVAgro Industries filed before the RTC a compulsory license to manufacture and produce its own
complaint for infringement of patent and unfair brand of medicines using Cimetidine. Private respondent
competition. invoked Section 34 (1) (e) of Republic Act No. 165 (the
Patent Law) the law then governing patents, which states
Petitioner maintains the defense that 1) He is manufactures that an application for the grant of a compulsory license
the tillersby order and specifications of the customers 2) under a particular patent may be filed with the BPTTT at any
Those made by him were different from those being time after the lapse of two (2) years from the date of grant
manufactured and sold by private respondent because of a of such patent, if the patented invention or article relates
drowning man clutching at straws. to food or medicine, or manufactured substances which
can be used as food or medicine, or is necessary for public
health or public safety. The petition for compulsory license
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an infringement stated that Cimetidine is useful as an antihistamine and in
the treatment of ulcers, and that private respondent is
HELD: Yes. Tests have been established to determine capable of using the patented product in the manufacture
infringement. These are (a) literal infringement; and (b) the of a useful product.
doctrine of equivalents.
Petitioner opposed the petition for compulsory
license. According to petitioner, the grant of a compulsory
Doctrine of equivalents which recognizes that minor
license to private respondent is an invalid exercise of police
modifications in a patented invention are sufficient to put
power since it was not shown that there is an overwhelming
the item beyond the scope of literal
public necessity for such grant, considering that petitioner
infringement. According to this doctrine, "an infringement
is able to provide an adequate supply of Cimetidine to
also occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by
satisfy the needs of the Philippine market. Petitioner also
incorporating its innovative concept and, albeit with some
claims that the grant of a compulsory license to private
modification and change, performs substantially the same
respondent unjustly deprives it of a reasonable return on its
function in substantially the same way to achieve
investment. It argues further that the provisions of the
substantially the same result."
Patent Law on compulsory licensing contravene the
Convention of Paris for the Protection of Industrial Property
Careful examination between the two power tillers will (Paris Convention), which allegedly permits the granting of
show that they will operate on the same fundamental a compulsory license over a patented product only to
17
principles. And, according to establish jurisprudence, in prevent abuses which might result from the exercise of the
infringement of patent, similarities or differences are to be
Page
which incorporates an amplifier speaker, one or two tape a minus-one tape and multiplex tape and to record the
singing and the accompaniment; (d) both are used to sing
Page
FACTS: Petitioner Gerardo Samson, Jr was, on May 22, Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc.
1958, awarded Utility Model Patent No. 27 for Dumping and G.R. No. 167715, November 17, 2010
Detachable Wheelbarrow which, as noted in the decision, PATENTS; Rights Arising Therefrom
"consists of a wheeled carriage base and an upper pivoted
and detachable carrying tray. The carriage base is
FACTS: The instant case arose from a Complaint for patent
comprised of a wheel and two equal lengths of continuous
infringement filed against petitioner Phil Pharmawealth,
pipes bent to provide wheel forks at the front and at the
Inc. by respondent companies, Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phil.),
rear to support the back portion of the tray, with the ends
Inc., with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual
of the pipes being adopted as the carrying handles for the
Property Office (BLA-IPO).
wheelbarrow. The two pipes thus bent are joined together
by cross braces in the front and at the rear. The tray is
Respondents prayed for permanent injunction, damages
removably pivoted at its front end through hook catches at
and the forfeiture and impounding of the alleged infringing
its bottom corners, to the forward cross brace, and its rear
products. They also asked for the issuance of a temporary
end rests solidly over the rear portion of the legs. To dump
restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would
the load the user pulls a dumping handle at the back end to
prevent herein petitioner, its agents, representatives and
cause the tray to pivot upwardly about the front brace to a
assigns, from importing, distributing, selling or offering the
position of about 45 degrees with the horizontal and with
Sulbactam Ampicillin for sale to any entity in the
its front end panel being supported by the wheel."
Philippines.
Respondent's Side Tilting-Dumping Wheelbarrow, on the BLA-IPO issued a preliminary injunction which was effective
other hand, consists "of a wheeled carriage made of tubular for ninety days. Prior to the expiration of the ninety-day
frames essentially as in petitioner's. Welded transversely to period, respondents filed a Motion for Extension which,
the parallel frames are two brackets provided with holes however, was denied by the BLA-IPO.
designed to complement similar holes on brackets provided
on the tray. The brackets on the tray are so placed that with Respondents then filed a special civil action
the provision of a bolt through the openings the tray may for certiorari with the CA praying for the issuance of a
22
be tilted approximately 170 degrees to the left or to the preliminary mandatory injunction for the reinstatement
Page
While the case was pending before the CA, respondents 2. Yes. It is true that under RA 8293, the Director
filed a Complaint RTC Makati City for infringement and General of the IPO exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction
unfair competition with damages against herein petitioner. over all decisions rendered by the Director of the BLA-IPO.
In said case, respondents prayed for the issuance of a TRO However, what is being questioned before the CA is not a
and preliminary injunction which the RTC later granted. decision, but an interlocutory order of the BLA-IPO denying
respondents' motion to extend the life of the preliminary
Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition injunction issued in their favor.
filed with the CA on the ground of forum shopping,
contending that the case filed with the RTC has the same RA 8293 is silent with respect to any remedy available to
objective as the petition filed with the CA. litigants who intend to question an interlocutory order
issued by the BLA-IPO.
Petitioner again filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for being
moot and academic, contending that respondents' patent Hence, in the present case, respondents correctly resorted
had already lapsed. In the same manner, petitioner also to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari with the CA
moved for the reconsideration of the temporary restraining to question the assailed Orders of the BLA-IPO, as they
order issued by the CA on the same basis that the patent cannot appeal therefrom and they have no other plain,
right sought to be protected has been extinguished due to speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
the lapse of the patent license and on the ground that the This is consistent with Sections 1and 4 Rule 65 of the Rules
CA has no jurisdiction to review the order of the BLA-IPO as of Court, as amended.
said jurisdiction is vested by law in the Office of the Director In the first place, respondents' act of filing their complaint
General of the IPO. originally with the BLA-IPO is already in consonance with
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
However, the propriety of extending the life of the writ of
a) Can an injunctive relief be issued based on an action of preliminary injunction issued by the BLA-IPO in the exercise
patent infringement when the patent allegedly infringed of its quasi-judicial power is no longer a matter that falls
has already lapsed? within the jurisdiction of the said administrative agency,
particularly that of its Director General. The resolution of
b) Does CA has jurisdiction over the case? this issue which was raised before the CA does not demand
the exercise by the IPO of sound administrative discretion
RULING: requiring special knowledge, experience and services in
1. NO. Section 37 of Republic Act No. (RA) 165 determining technical and intricate matters of fact. It is
provides that the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use settled that one of the exceptions to the doctrine of primary
and sell a patented product, article or process exists only jurisdiction is where the question involved is purely legal
during the term of the patent. In the instant case, Letters and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
Patent No. 21116, which was the basis of respondents in justice. This is the case with respect to the issue raised in
filing their complaint with the BLA-IPO, was issued on July the petition filed with the CA.
16, 1987. This fact was admitted by respondents
themselves in their complaint. They also admitted that the
validity of the said patent is until July 16, 2004, which is in
conformity with Section 21 of RA 165, providing that the
term of a patent shall be seventeen (17) years from the date
of issuance thereof. Hence, there is no longer any need to
present evidence on the issue of expiration of respondents'
patent.
23