Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts:
Respondent Jose Ong Lian Bio filed with the Philippine Patent Office applications for
the issuance of letters patent on two designs for luggages.
Petitioner Co San, however, filed with the Patent Office a petition for cancellation of
said letters patent on the grounds that the said party does not comply with the
requirements of Intellectual Property Act.
The petition for cancellation was dismissed by the Director of Patents. The petitioner
adduced only documentary evidence and relied heavily on the decision of the Court of
Appeals in which he was acquitted of the crime of unfair competition.
ISSUE
whether or not the Director of Patents is bound in the cancellation proceedings by the
findings arrived at by the Court of Appeals in the Criminal case against petitioner.
HELD:
The answer is in negative. The proceeding for the cancellation of letters patent,
involving the question of the validity of the design patents issued to the respondent, is
within the cognizance of the Patent Office, while the criminal case, where the inquiry
was whether petitioner unfairly competed against the luggage of respondent, comes
under the jurisdiction of the Court First Instance.
The acquittal of the petitioner by the Court of Appeals was not based on the
cancellation of the patent, but on the ground that the petitioner (the accused) had not
deceived or defrauded the respondent. That acquittal does not bind the Director of
Patents in the cancellation proceeding-.
DEL ROSARIO VS CA
FACTS:
(5) years and was extended for another five (5) years
ISSUE:
Whether or not the utility models were “new” as contemplated under the Patent Law.
HELD:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for patent cancellation of the petitioner is correctly
denied by the Director of Patents.
HELD:
"practical utility."
MAGUAN VS. CA
FACTS:
powder puff.
cancellation of Patent.
ISSUE:
HELD:
165) .
166)
167)
168) Defenses in an action for infringement are provided
judgment.
FACTS:
misrepresentation.
ISSUE:
HELD:
patentable.
that the patentee was the original and first inventor. The
doubt.
4 Hence, a utility model shall not be considered “new”
country.
5
held insufficient.
9