Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > December 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 38010 December 21, 1933 - PATRICK HENRY FRANK, ET AL. v. G. KOSUYAMA

059 Phil 206:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 38010. December 21, 1933.]

PATRICK HENRY FRANK and WILLIAM HENRY GOHN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. G. KOSUYAMA, Defendant-Appellee.

J. W. Ferrier for Appellants.

Pablo Lorenzo for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PATIENT; ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. — Strictly speaking, the hemp stripping machine of the plaintiffs does not constitute an invention on the ground that it lacks the element of novelty, originality and precedence (48 C. J., sec. 101, p. 97, and sec. 102, p. 98).

2. ID.; KNOWLEDGE AND USE BY THE PUBLIC. — Before the plaintiffs herein obtained their patent, they themselves had already publicly used the same kind of machine for many months, at least, and, various other machines, having in general, the same characteristics and important parts as that of the said plaintiffs, were known in the Province of Davao.

3. ID.; ANNULMENT. — Notwithstanding all the facts herein stated, the trial court did not annul the plaintiffs’ patent and the defendant herein insists that the patent in question should be declared null and void. In view of the nature of the action brought by the plaintiffs, annulment does not lie in the absence of a cross-complaint to that effect.

4. ID.; INFRINGEMENT. — The defendant cannot be made civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patent on which the action is based on the ground that the machines manufactured and sold by him did not have any essential part unknown to the public in the Province of Davao at the time the plaintiffs applied for and obtained their patent for improved abaca stripping machines.

5. APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF "STARE DECISIS." — The doctrine laid down in the case of Frank and Gohn v. Benito (51 Phil., 712), to the effect that the defendant therein had actually infringed upon the patent of the therein plaintiffs cannot be invoked in this case. It is true that the then plaintiffs in the former and those in the latter case are the same but the defendant therein did not set up the special defenses as alleged by the herein defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiffs therein had only confined themselves to presenting the patent, or rather, a copy thereof, wherein mention of the "spindle" was made, and this court took for granted their claim that it was one of the essential characteristics thereof which had been imitated or copied by the therein defendant.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


Patent No. 1519579 (Exhibit 117) on improvement in hemp stripping machines, issued by the United States Patent Office on December 16, 1924, and registered in the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the Philippine Islands on March 17, 1925, was the origin of this action brought by the plaintiffs herein who prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant, ordering him thereby to refrain immediately from the manufacture and sale off 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 defendant 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 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 costs, as well as the defendant’s counterclaim of P10,000. The defendant did not appeal.

In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs 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 tapering 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 pallet or 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 differences between the machine in question and other machines and 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 arrived at the following conclusions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In considering their machine the plaintiffs did nothing but improve, to a certain degree, those that were already in vogue and in actual use 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 can it 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 machines appeared. Neither can it be said that they invented the flywheel because that part or piece thereof, so essential in every machine from time immemorial, was already known and actually employed in hemp stripping machines such as those of Riesgo (Exhibit 4-A), Crumb (Exhibit 1-A), Icsiar (Exhibit A-Suzara), Browne (Exhibit 28-A), McFie, etc., all of which were in use for the benefit of hemp long before the appearance of the plaintiffs’ machines in the market. Much less can it be said that they invented the pedal to raise the knife in order to allow the hemp to be stripped to pass under it, on the ground that the use of such contrivance has, likewise, been known since the invention of the most primitive of hemp stripping machines.

"On the other hand, although the plaintiffs alleged in their original complaint that ’the principal and important feature of said machine is a spindle upon which the hemp to be stripped is wound in the process of stripping,’ nevertheless, in their amended complaint of March 3, 1928, which was filed after a portion of the evidence therein had already been submitted and it was known that the use of the spindle was nothing new, they still made the allegations appearing in paragraph 3 of their said amended complaint and reproduced on pages 2, 3, 4 and 5 hereof, copying the same from the application which they filed with the United States Patent Office, under which they obtained their patent in question. The aforesaid application clearly shows that what they applied for was not a patent for a ’pioneer or primary invention’ but only for some ’new and useful improvement in hemp stripping machines.’"

We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented and have had the opportunity of ascertaining the truth of the conclusions above stated. We agree with the trial court that, strictly speaking, the hemp stripping machine of the plaintiffs does not constitute an invention on the ground that it lacks the elements of novelty, originality and precedence (48 C. J., sec. 101, p. 97, and sec. 102, p. 98). In fact, before the plaintiffs herein obtained their patent, they themselves had already publicly used the same kind of machine for some months, at least, and, various other machines, having in general, the same characteristics and important parts as that of the said plaintiffs, were known in the Province of Davao. Machines known as Molo, Riesgo, Crumb, Icsiar, Browne and McFie were already known in that locality and used by the owners of hemp plantations before the machine of the plaintiffs came into existence. It may also be noted that Adrian de Icsiar applied for a patent on an invention which resulted in the rejection by the United States Patent Office of the plaintiffs’ original application for a patent on the so-called "spindle" or conical drum which was then in actual use in the Dringman and Icsiar hemp stripping machines.

Notwithstanding the foregoing facts, 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 insists 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 to patents.

In support of their claim the plaintiffs invoke the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of Frank and Gohn v. 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 in 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 are 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 an obtained their patent for improved hemp stripping machines, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, and Hull, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 38989 December 1, 1933 - ALEJO BASCO v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALEZ

    059 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 39298 December 1, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO RAMOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 38499 December 6, 1933 - FAUSTINA UDARBE, ET AL. v. MARCIANA JURADO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 38572 December 6, 1933 - EUSEBIO RIVERO v. MARIANO RIVERO

    059 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. 37792 December 7, 1933 - QUINTIN DE BORJA v. FRANCISCO DE BORJA

    059 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 38097 December 7, 1933 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO., LTD. v. ORLANES & BANAAG TRANS. CO.

    059 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 38552 December 7, 1933 - ENRIQUE SOMES v. VICENTE SOMES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 38398 December 8, 1933 - PHIL. TRUST CO., ET AL. v. L. P. MITCHELL, ET AL.

    059 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 39864 December 8, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELINO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 40492 December 8, 1933 - TIMOTEO EVANGELISTA v. CFI OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 40494 December 8, 1933 - GREGORIO PASCUA, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 37105 December 9, 1933 - GUI PING HUI v. ACTING INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 38298 December 9, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JESUS TOLENTINO

    059 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 37467 December 11, 1933 - SAN CARLOS MILLING CO. v. BPI, ET AL.

    059 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 38850 December 11, 1933 - ANTONIO ESTIVA, ET AL. v. GONZALO CAWIL, ET AL.

    059 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 39034 December 11, 1933 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. GEORGE A. YARED

    059 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 39456 December 11, 1933 - PASTOR V. VALERA v. RURAL TRANSIT CO.

    059 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 39470 December 11, 1933 - NORTH LUZON TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. PASTOR V. VALERA

    059 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 39008 December 12, 1933 - NIEVES E. SAÑGA v. SEGUNDO ZABALLERO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 37185 December 13, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHUA BUAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 38332 December 14, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. VALERIANO DUCOSIN

    059 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 38709 December 14, 1933 - SY TIANGCO v. HIPOLITO PABLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 119

  • In the matter of the complaint against Attorney Gregorio O. Santos. December 16, 1933 - INES VENTURA v. GREGORIO O. SANTOS

    059 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 38256 December 16, 1933 - PHIL. COOP. LIVESTOCK ASSO. v. TOMAS EARNSHAW, ET AL.

    059 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 38417 December 16, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCIANO MEDINA

    059 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 39003 December 16, 1933 - LAUREANO ELEGADO, ET AL. v. NICANOR TAVORA

    059 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 39403 December 16, 1933 - LEE SING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 38773 December 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GINES S. ALBURQUERQUE

    059 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 39913 December 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RICARDO N. MELENDREZ

    059 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 39181 December 20, 1933 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. M. P. TRANCO, INC.

    059 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 39217 December 20, 1933 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. M. P. TRANCO, INC.

    059 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 39275 December 20, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RICARDO MENDOZA

    059 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 40637 December 20, 1933 - M.P. TRANS. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    059 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 40759 December 20, 1933 - LIME CORP. OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANUEL V. MORAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 36890 December 21, 1933 - BPI v. PASCUAL ACUÑA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 37590 December 21, 1933 - JOSE FERNANDO RODRIGO v. CONCEPCION CABIGAO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 37640 December 21, 1933 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EL AHORRO INSULAR

    059 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 38010 December 21, 1933 - PATRICK HENRY FRANK, ET AL. v. G. KOSUYAMA

    059 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 38084 December 21, 1933 - DOLORES M. VIUDA DE BARRETTO ET AL. v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    059 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 38131 December 21, 1933 - BEHN, MEYER & CO., ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    059 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 38684 December 21, 1933 - CYRUS PADGETT v. BABCOCK & TEMPLETON, INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 232

  • G.R. Nos. 38215 & 38216 December 22, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FAUSTINO RIVERA

    059 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 38375 December 22, 1933 - JOSE SY JONG CHUY v. PABLO C. REYES

    059 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 39078 December 22, 1933 - NICASIA BATALLONES v. PUBLEO BATALLONES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 39839 December 22, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIEL HERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 40659 December 22, 1933 - PASAY TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    059 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 40889 December 22, 1933 - ISIDORO YBOLEON v. PEDRO MA. SISON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 35694 December 23, 1933 - ALLISON D. GIBBS v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    059 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 37090 December 23, 1933 - CRISANTA SUAREZ, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO TIRAMBULO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 37345 December 23, 1933 - ALEJANDRA REPOLLO, ET AL. v. BERNABE BALECHA

    059 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 37452 December 23, 1933 - FERMIN SUPIA, ET AL. v. JOSE M. QUINTERO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 38052 December 23, 1933 - CONCEPCION ABELLA DE DIAZ v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 38434 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCIANO D. MEDINA

    059 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 38774 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEKO LILIUS

    059 Phil 339

  • G.R. Nos. 39840 & 39841 December 23, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIEL HERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 343