More Create Blog Sign In
Law School Notes and Digests
Friday, December 8, 2017
CRESER PRECISION SYSTEM INC. VS. CA AND
FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.
CRESER PRECISION SYSTEM INC. VS. CA AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.
GR No. 118708
February 2, 1998
PONENTE: MARTINEZ, J.
FACTS:
Private respondent Floro is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, production,
distribution and sale of military armaments, munitions, airmunitions and other similar materials. On
Jan. 23, 1990, private respondent Floro was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer a Letters Patent covering an aerial fuze. Subjects
However, Floro’s President, Mr. Gregory Floro discovered that petitioner Creser submitted samples of Agrarian Law (13)
its patented aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for testing and that petitioner is
Banking Law (12)
claiming the aerial fuze as its own and planning to bid and manufacture it commercially.
Constitutional Law (1)
Petitioner Creser contends that it is the first, true and actual inventor of an aerial fuze denominated
Credits (1)
as which it developed as early as December 1981 under the Self-Reliance Defense Posture Program
(SRDP) of the AFP; that sometime in 1986, petitioner began supplying the AFP with the said aerial Criminal Procedure (25)
fuze; that private respondent's aerial fuze is identical in every respect to the petitioner's fuze; and
that the only difference between the two fuzes are miniscule and merely cosmetic in nature. Intellectual Property (17)
Labor Relations (56)
Petitioner prayed that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction be issued
enjoining private respondent including any and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, Legal Forms (22)
marketing and/or profiting therefrom, and/or from performing any other act in connection therewith or
Legal Writing (31)
tending to prejudice and deprive it of any rights, privileges and benefits to which it is duly entitled as
the first, true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze. Obligations and Contracts (12)
Persons and Family Relations (127)
RTC issued a TRO and later on granted the preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff against private
respondent. While CA reversed the RTC’s decision and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner. Statutory Construction (18)
Taxation (21)
ISSUE: Whether Petitioner can file an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in
possession of a right, title or interest in and to the patented invention? Transportation Law (10)
RULING:
About Me
NO. Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides:
Sec. 42. Civil action for infringement. — Any patentee, or anyone possessing any right, title Michelle Vale Cruz
or interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights have been infringed, may bring a
Attorney-at-Law Attorney at 24
civil action before the proper Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial court), to recover
Attorney at last!!!
from the infringer damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to secure an
injunction for the protection of his right. . . . View my complete profile
There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since whatever right one
has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant of patent. In short, a person or Follow me!
entity who has not been granted letters patent over an invention and has not acquired any light or
title thereto either as assignee or as licensee, has no cause of action for infringement because the
right to maintain an infringement suit depends on the existence of the patent.
Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze. Therefore, it has no legal basis or cause of
action to institute the petition for injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement by
private respondent. While petitioner claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze, still it has no
right of property over the same upon which it can maintain a suit unless it obtains a patent therefor.
Total Pageviews
Posted by Michelle Vale Cruz at Friday, December 08, 2017 230,363
Labels: Intellectual Property
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Google Account
Publish Preview
Newer Post Home Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Ethereal theme. Powered by Blogger.
