[No. 4720. January 19, 1909.

CARLOS GSELL, plaintiff and appellee, vs. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE, defendant and appellant

WON the use of a process in all respects identical with a process protected by a valid patent, save only
that a well-known mechanical equivalent is substituted in lieu of some particular part of the patented
process, is an infringement upon the rights of the owner of the patent. The Court agreed so and such
action will be enjoined in appropriate proceeding. Therefore, the use of such process, after the order
enjoining its use has been issued, is a "contempt," under the Code of Civil Procedure.

No. L-45101. November 28, 1986.*

ROSARIO C. MAGUAN (formerly ROSARIO C. TAN), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and SUS ANA LUCHAN, respondents.

WON the writ of injunction was validly issued by the trial court. In actions for patent infringement a writ
of injunction will not issue unless the validity of the patent in relation to the issue of novelty and
originality of the alleged invention, is clear and beyond question. If a fair case of invalidity, after
preliminary hearing is presented, injunction must not issue. As the validity of petitioner's patents is in
question for want of novelty, hence, the injunction issued is invalid.

G.R. No. 97343. September 13, 1993.*

PASCUAL GODINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION
and SV-AGRO ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents.

WON minor modifications in a patented invention are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of
literal infringement. The Court have adopted the doctrine of equivalents which recognizes that minor
modifications in a patented invention are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal
infringement. Therefore, an infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by
incorporating its innovative concept which performs substantially the same function and achieve the
same result.

G.R. No. 115106. March 15, 1996.*

ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND JANITO CORPORATION,
respondents.

WON a utility model shall not be considered “new” if before the application for a patent it has been
publicly known. Under Sec. 55 of The Patent Law a utility model shall not be considered “new” if before
the application for a patent it has been publicly known or publicly used in this country or has been
described in a printed publication or publications circulated within the country, or if it is substantially
similar to any other utility model so known, used or described within the country. Respondent
corporation failed to present before the trial court competent evidence that the utility models covered
by the Letters Patents issued to petitioner were not new.

G.R. No. 126627. August 14, 2003.*

SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
TRYCO PHARMA CORPORATION, respondents.
WON there is infringement if the function-means-and-result test are met. The doctrine of equivalents
requires satisfaction of the function-means-and-result test, the patentee having the burden to show
that all three components of such equivalency test are met. Therefore, there is a valid action for
infringement.

G.R. No. 118708. February 2, 1998.*

CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL
CORP., respondents.

WON the patentee or his successors-in-interest alone may file an action for infringement. The phrase
“anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention” upon which petitioner
maintains its present suit, refers only to the patentee’s successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees
since actions for infringement of patent may be brought in the name of the person or persons
interested, whether as patentee, assignees, or as grantees, of the exclusive right. Hence, only the said
parties may file an action for infringement.

No. L-82542. September 29, 1988.*

BARRY JOHN PRICE, JOHN WATSON CLITHERON and JOHN BRADSHAW, Assignors to ALLEN &
HANBURYS, LTD., petitioners, vs. UNITED LABORATORIES, respondent

WON the Director of Patents are authorized to fix the terms and conditions of the compulsory license.
The terms and conditions of the compulsory license were fixed by the Director of Patents after a hearing
and careful consideration of the evidence of the parties and in default of an agreement between them
as to the terms of the license. This he is authorized to do under Section 36 of Republic Act No. 165.

[No. L-4572. May. 22, 1953] DOLORITO M. FELECIANO AND MAXIMO B. TAPINIO, applicants and
appellees. MELITON D. ALBASTA, petitioner and appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS,
respondent and appellee.

WON the Director of Patents has no power and authority to compel the applicant-inventors to do what
the movant is asking them to perform. What the movant asks the Director of Patents to do for him is
essentially a judicial function which would require the determination of finding by a court of competent
jurisdiction as to whether there was a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties before it could
compel any of them to perform what the movant prays the court to order him to do. Hence, such action
is beyond the Director’s jurisdiction.