Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Godines V CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Godines was liable for patent infringement and unfair competition. Private respondent SV-Agro Industries held a patent for a power tiller design, which Godines began manufacturing and selling similar designs of without permission. While Godines argued his designs were different, the Court found his power tillers performed substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, and thus constituted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also held Proof of adoption of the substance of the patented invention was sufficient to establish infringement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Godines V CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    1K views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Godines was liable for patent infringement and unfair competition. Private respondent SV-Agro Industries held a patent for a power tiller design, which Godines began manufacturing and selling similar designs of without permission. While Godines argued his designs were different, the Court found his power tillers performed substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, and thus constituted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also held Proof of adoption of the substance of the patented invention was sufficient to establish infringement.

    Original Description:

    m

    Original Title

    Godines v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Godines was liable for patent infringement and unfair competition. Private respondent SV-Agro Industries held a patent for a power tiller design, which Godines began manufacturing and selling similar designs of without permission. While Godines argued his designs were different, the Court found his power tillers performed substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, and thus constituted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also held Proof of adoption of the substance of the patented invention was sufficient to establish infringement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Godines V CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous fnlSh4KHIg
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Godines was liable for patent infringement and unfair competition. Private respondent SV-Agro Industries held a patent for a power tiller design, which Godines began manufacturing and selling similar designs of without permission. While Godines argued his designs were different, the Court found his power tillers performed substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, and thus constituted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Court also held Proof of adoption of the substance of the patented invention was sufficient to establish infringement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GODINES vs.

    CA
    FACTS:
    1. The patent involved in this case is Letters Patent No. UM-2236,
    issued by the Philippine Patent Office to one Magdalena S. Villaruz,
    which covers a utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller.
    2. The patent was acquired by SV-Agro Industries Enterprises, Inc.,
    private respondent, from Magdalena Villaruz, by virtue of a Deed of
    Assignment executed by the latter in its favor.
    3. Subsequent thereto, SV-Agro Industries caused the publication of
    the patent in Bulletin Today, a newspaper of general circulation.
    4. In accordance with the patent, private respondent manufactured
    and sold the patented power tillers with the patent imprinted on
    them.
    5. Thereafter, SV-Agro Industries suffered 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 private respondent were being manufactured and sold
    by petitioner.
    6. Private respondent notified Godines about the existing patent and
    demanded that the latter stop selling and manufacturing similar
    power tillers. When petitioner failed to comply with the demand,
    SV-Agro Industries filed before the RTC a complaint for
    infringement of patent and unfair competition.
    7. RTC found Godines liable for infringement of patent and unfair
    competition. CA affirmed. Thus, this petition.
    8. Petitioner maintains the defenses which he raised before the trial
    and appellate courts, to wit: that he was not engaged in the
    manufacture and sale of the power tillers as he made them only
    upon the special order of his customers who gave their own
    specifications; hence, he could not be liable for infringement of
    patent and unfair competition; and that those made by him were
    different from those being manufactured and sold by private
    respondent.

    2.

    3.
    4.

    5.

    6.
    7.

    ISSUE: WON petitioner's product infringed upon the patent of private


    respondent?- YES
    RULING:
    1. Tests have been established to determine infringement:
    (a) Literal infringement; and
    (b) Doctrine of equivalents.

    8.

    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." 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
    Petitioner's argument that his power tillers were different from
    those of private respondent's is that of a drowning man clutching
    at straws.
    Recognizing that the logical fallback position of one in the place of
    defendant is to aver that his product is different from the patented
    one, courts 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.
    Thus, according to this doctrine, "(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." The reason for the
    doctrine of equivalents is that to permit the imitation of a patented
    invention which does not copy any literal detail would be to
    convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless
    thing. Such imitation would leave room for, and indeed encourage
    the 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.
    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 thing will be sufficient.
    The law will protect a patentee against imitation of his patent by
    other forms and proportions. If two devices do the same work in
    substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same
    result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form,
    or shape.
    Petitioner is thus liable for infringement in accordance with Section
    37 of Republic Act No. 165, as amended, as well as for unfair
    competition in accordance with Section 29 of Republic Act No. 166,
    as amended.

    You might also like