Power Tillers (a)n infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept

and, albeit with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result.

Godines vs CA Facts: Petitioner is the patent owner of a Turtle Power Tiller duly issue by the Philippine Patent Office. This patent was acquired by SV-Argo Industries by virtue of a deed of assignment by Villaruz In accordance with the said patent, Private respondent sold and manufactured the identical Turtle Power Tiller. Sv-Agro Industries sales lowered by a 50% margin. Upon its investigation it found out that respondent manufactured and sold said tillers. Petitioner sent a letter of demand to stop said manufacture but it was futile. Petitioner then Filed with the RTC a case for patent infringement. Respondent countered that he only sold the said products upon the specified order and design of his buyers. RTC ruled in favor of Petitioner. CA Affirmed the Decision Issue: What is the doctrine of equivalents and Literal Infringement? Held: Tests have been established to determine infringement. These are (a) literal infringement; and (b) the doctrine of equivalents. In using literal infringement as a test, ". . . resort must be had, in the first instance, to the words of the claim. If accused matter clearly falls within the claim, infringement is made out and that is the end of it." 8 To determine whether the particular item falls within the literal meaning of the patent claims, the court must juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused product within the overall context of the claims and specifications, to determine whether there is exact identity of all material elements. 9 Moreover, it is also observed that petitioner also called his power tiller as a floating power tiller. The patent issued by the Patent Office referred to a "farm implement but more particularly to a turtle hand tractor having a vacuumatic housing float on which the engine drive is held in place, the operating handle, the harrow housing with its operating handle and the paddy wheel protective covering." 11 It appears from the foregoing observation of the trial court that these claims of the patent and the features of the patented utility model were copied by petitioner. We are compelled to arrive at no other conclusion but that there was infringement.] (a)n infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, albeit with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. he unscrupulous copyist to make unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in the patent which, though adding nothing, would be enough to take the copied matter outside the claim, and hence outside the reach of the law.

Umbrella Cane/Parasol Mere formal alterations in a combination is no defense to the charge of infringement and the withdrawal of one ingredient from the patent and the substitution of another which was well known at the date of the patent is a mere formal alteration. SELL V. YAP-JUE Facts:

In that case, plaintiff established his title to a valid patent covering the process in question, and obtained against this defendant a judgment, granting a perpetual injunction restraining its infringement, which judgment was affirmed by this Court on appeal. Gsell has a patent the manufacturing of canes and umbrellas with a curved handle by means of lamp or blowpipe fed with oil or petroleum. He filed an action for infringement and for injunction against Yap-Jue, and obtained it. But Yap-Jue continued to manufacture the products. Yap claims that it does not use coal or mineral oil, but it uses an alcohol burning lamp. Issue: Whether or not the use of a patented process by a third person without license constitutes an infringement when the alleged infringer has substituted some unessential part with a well-known mechanical equivalent. Held: Alcohol is an equivalent or substitute well known when the patent was issued. It is an unessential part of the patented process. Gsell does not claim a patent on the particular lamp used by him, but the claims on the right to use a lamp in the manufacture of curved handles for umbrellas. The doctrine of mechanical equivalents is applicable in this case. This doctrine may be invoked to protect the patentee from colorable invasions of his patent under the guise of a substitution of some part of his invention by some well-known mechanical equivalent. Mere formal alterations in a combination is no defense to the charge of infringement and the withdrawal of one ingredient from the patent and the substitution of another which was well known at the date of the patent is a mere formal alteration. Del-Rosario v CA Facts: Del Rosarion petitioned the RTC to order a writ of preliminary injunction against Jacinto Corporation. Del Rorasio is the patent owner of Sing Along System or the Karaoke under Letters Patent No. UM-5269 dated 2 June 1983 as well as Letters Patent No. UM-6237 dated 14 November 1986 issued by the Director of Patents. the effectivity of the patents were for 5 years and extended by another 5 years upto 1991. Petitioner found out, that respondent Jacinto Corp. was manufacturing and selling a similar type of audio equipment which it has branded as Miyata with a slight alteration and modification of its body parts. Petitioner now files with the RTC seeking the injunction of Jacinto, to stop him from manufacturing and selling the said product, in violation of the patent rights of Del Rosario. RTC grants the writ. CA affirmed the writ but set aside the RTC ruling that there was infringement. Respondent contended lack of novelty, since there were several other companies who have been manufacturing and selling the said equipment years prior to the patent application of petitioner. Issue: Whether or not there was a patent infringement in this case, where respondents manufactured and sold the same Sing Along System with a slight component modification? Held: As may be gleaned herein, the rights of petitioner as a patentee have been sufficiently established, contrary to the findings and conclusions of respondent Court of Appeals. Consequently, under Sec. 37 of The Patent law, petitioner as a patentee shall have the exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented machine, article or product for the purpose of industry or commerce, throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term of the patent, and such making, using or selling by any person without authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of his patent. It is elementary that a patent may be infringed where the essential or substantial features of the patented invention are taken or appropriated, or the device, machine or other subject matter alleged to infringe is substantially identical with the patented invention. In order to infringe a patent, a machine or device must perform the same function, or accomplish the same result by identical or substantially identical means and the principle or mode of operation must be substantially the same It may be noted that respondent corporation failed to present before the trial court a clear, competent and reliable comparison between its own model and that of petitioner, and disregarded completely petitioner's utility Model No. 6237 which improved on his first patented model. Notwithstanding the differences cited by respondent corporation, it did not refute and disprove the allegations of petitioner before the trial court that: (a) both are used by a singer to sing and amplify his voice; (b) both are used to sing with a minus-one or multiplex tapes, or that both are used to play minus-one or standard cassette tapes for singing or for listening to; (c) both are used to sing with a minus-one tape and multiplex

tape and to record the singing and the accompaniment; (d) both are used to sing with live accompaniment and to record the same; (e) both are used to enhance the voice of the singer using echo effect, treble, bass and other controls; (g) both are equipped with cassette tape decks which are installed with one being used for playback and the other, for recording the singer and the accompaniment, and both may also be used to record a speaker's voice or instrumental playing, like the guitar and other instruments; (h) both are encased in a box-like cabinets; and, (i) both can be used with one or more microphones Clearly, therefore, both petitioner's and respondent's models involve substantially the same modes of operation and produce substantially the same if not identical results when used. Wherefore, reiterating that the defendant cannot be held civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patent upon which the present action is based on the ground that there is no essential part of the machine manufactured and sold by him, which was unknown to the public in the Province of Davao at the time the plaintiffs applied for and obtained their patent for improved hemp stripping machines, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered. FRANK v KOSUYAMA 59 PHIL 206 FACTS: Patent on improvement in hemp stripping machines, issued by the United States Patent Office and registered in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the Philippine, was the origin of this action brought by the plaintiffs herein who prayed that the judgment be rendered against the defendant, ordering him thereby to refrain immediately from the manufacture and sale of machines similar to the one covered by the patent: to render an accounting of the profits realized from the manufacture and sale of the machines in question; that in case of refusal or failure to render such accounting, the defendants be ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P60 as profit on each machine manufactured or sold by him; that upon approval of the required bond, said defendant be restrained from continuing the manufacture and sale of the same kind of machines; that after the trial the preliminary injunction issued therein be declared permanent and, lastly, that the said defendant be sentenced to pay the costs and whatever damages the plaintiffs might be able to prove therein. The action therefore was based upon alleged infringement by the defendant of the rights and privileges acquired by the plaintiffs over the aforesaid patent through the manufacture and sale by the former of machines similar to that covered by the aforesaid patent. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment rendered by the trial court dismissing their complaint, with cost, as well as the defendant's counterclaim of P10,000. The defendant did not appeal. In their amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that their hemp stripping machines, for which they obtained a patent, have the following characteristics: "A stripping head, a horizontal table, a stripping knife supported upon such table, a tappering spindle, a rest holder adjustably secured on the table portion, a lever and means of compelling the knife to close upon the table, a pallet or rest in the bottom of the table, a resilient cushion under such palletor rest." In spite of the fact that they filed an amended complaint from which the "spindle" or conical drum, which was the only characteristic feature of the machine mentioned in the original complaint, was eliminated, the plaintiffs insisted that the said part constitutes the essential difference between the machine in question and other machines and that it was the principal consideration upon which their patent was issued. The said plaintiffs sustained their contention on this point even in their printed brief and memorandum filed in this appeal. During the trial, both parties presented voluminous evidence from which the trial court concluded that in constructing their machine the plaintiffs did nothing but improve, to a certain degree, those that were already in vogue and in actual us in hemp producing provinces. It cannot be said that they have invented the "spindle" inasmuch as this was already known since the year 1909 or 1910. Neither it can be said that they have invented the stripping knife and the contrivance which controls the movement and pressure thereof on the ground that stripping knives together with their control sets were already in actual use in the different stripping machines long before their machine appeared.

ISSUE: Whether there is an infringement on the patents

HELD: The trial court did not decree the annulment of the plaintiffs' patent and the herein defendant-appellee insists that the patent in question should be declared null and void. We are of the opinion that it would be improper and untimely to render a similar judgment, in view of the nature of the action brought by the plaintiffs and in the absence of a cross-complaint to that effect. For the purposes of this appeal, suffice it to hold that the defendant is not civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patent in question.

In the light of sound logic, the plaintiffs cannot insist that the "spindle" was a patented invention on the ground that said part of the machine was voluntarily omitted by them from their application, as evidenced by the photographic copy thereof (Exhibit 41) wherein it likewise appears that the patent on Improved Hemp Stripping Machines was issued minus the "spindle" in question. Were we to stress to this part of the machine, we would be giving the patent obtained by the plaintiffs a wider range than it actually has, which is contrary to the principles of interpretation in matters relating to patents. In support of their claim the plaintiffs invoke the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of Frank and Gohn vs. Benito (51 Phil., 712), wherein it was held that the therein defendant really infringed upon the patent of the therein plaintiffs. It may be noted that the plaintiffs in the former and those of the latter case are the same and that the patent then involved is the very same one upon which the present action of the plaintiffs is based. The above-cited case, however, cannot be invoked as a precedent to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that the facts in one case entirely different from those in the other. In the former case the defendant did not set up the same special defenses as those alleged by the herein defendant in his answer and the plaintiffs therein confined themselves to presenting the patent, or rather a copy thereof, wherein the "spindle" was mentioned, and this court took for granted their claim that it was one of the essential characteristics thereof which was imitated or copied by the then defendant. Thus it came to pass that the "spindle" in question was insistently mentioned in the decision rendered on appeal as the essential part of the plaintiffs' machine allegedly imitated by the then defendant. In the case under consideration, it is obvious that the "spindle" is not an integral part of the machine patented by the plaintiffs on the ground that it was eliminated from their patent inasmuch as it was expressly excluded in their application, as evidenced by the aforesaid Exhibit 41. Wherefore, reiterating that the defendant cannot be held civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patent upon which the present action is based on the ground that there is no essential part of the machine manufactured and sold by him, which was unknown to the public in the Province of Davao at the time the plaintiffs applied for and obtained their patent for improved hemp stripping machines, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.

It is well established that an improver cannot appropriate the basic patent of another and that the improver without a license is an infringer and may be sued as such.

PATRICK HENRY FRANK and WILLIAM HENRY GOHN vs. CONSTANCIO BENITO G.R. No. L-27793, March 15, 1928 FACTS: Plaintiffs are the owners of a patent covering hemp-stripping machine No. 1519579 issued to them by the United States Patent Office and duly registered in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the Philippine Islands under the provisions of Act No. 2235 Plaintiffs allege that the defendant manufactured a hemp-stripping machine in which, without authority from the plaintiffs, and has embodied and used such spindles and their method of application and use, and is exhibiting his machine to the public for the purpose of inducing its purchase. Frank and Gohn stress that use by the Benito of such spindles and the principle of their application to the stripping of hemp is in violation of, and in conflict with, plaintiffs' patent, together with its conditions and specifications. Plaintiffs assert the violation of infringement upon the patent granted to Frank & Gohn, and requested that an action for injunction and damages be instituted against Benito. Respondent on the other hand contends that it had no prior knowledge of the prior existence of the hemp-stripping invention of the plaintiffs nor had any intent to imitate the Franks product. Likewise, the defendant contended that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a cause of action, that it is ambiguous and vague. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, to which was later affirmed by the appellate court. HELD: As a rule, the burden of proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. Where, however, the plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence, if it is in due form, it affords a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents in granting the patent is always presumed to be correct. The burden the shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption. The patent in the case at bar, having been introduced in evidence, affords a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. Hence, this is not a case of a conflict between two different patents. In the recent of Temco Electric Motor Co. vs. Apco Mfg. Co., decided by the Supreme Court of the United States ruledan improper cannot appropriate the basic patent of another, and if he does so without license is an infringer, and may be used as such. It is well established that an improver cannot appropriate the basic patent of another and that the improver without a license is an infringer and may be sued as such.