[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
97 views1 page

Frank v. Kosuyama

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for allegedly infringing their patent on an improved hemp stripping machine. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' machine lacked novelty, originality, and precedence because the plaintiffs had already publicly used a similar machine for months before filing for the patent. Additionally, other machines with similar characteristics and important parts were already known in the same province. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment that the plaintiffs' machine was not a true invention and that the defendant was not liable for infringement.

Uploaded by

Aliw del Rosario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97 views1 page

Frank v. Kosuyama

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for allegedly infringing their patent on an improved hemp stripping machine. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' machine lacked novelty, originality, and precedence because the plaintiffs had already publicly used a similar machine for months before filing for the patent. Additionally, other machines with similar characteristics and important parts were already known in the same province. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment that the plaintiffs' machine was not a true invention and that the defendant was not liable for infringement.

Uploaded by

Aliw del Rosario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Frank v.

Kosuyama

Novelty – invention shall not be considered new if it forms part of a prior art. They themselves had
already publicly used the same kind of machine for some months and various other machines with the
same characteristics and important parts were known in the province. They themselves used it prior to
the application…so it came under prior art.

-Patent on improvement in hemp stripping machines, issued by US Patent Office on December 16,1924, and registered in the
Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the Philippine Islands on March 17,1925,

- The action was based upon alleged infringement by the defendant of the rights and privileges acquired by the plaintiffs over
the aforesaid patent through the manufacture and sale by the former of machines similar to that covered by the aforesaid
patent.
-In constructing their machine the plaintiffs did nothing but improve, to a certain degree, those that were already in vogue and in
actual us in hemp producing provinces.
-Defendants contention: It cannot be said that they have invented the spindle, fly wheel, stripping knife, contrivance, stripping
knives and their control sets were already in actual use in the different stripping machines long before their machine appeared.
All of which were in use for the benefit of hemp long before the appearance of the plaintiffs' machines in the market.
-Plaintiffs still made the allegations 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."
RTC: The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment rendered by the trial court dismissing their complaint. The defendant did not
appeal. RTC did not annul the patent of the plaintiffs but it held that 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
-Defendant-appellee insists that the patent in question should be declared null and void.

Held: 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 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.
-The defendant is not civilly liable for alleged infringement of the patent in question.
-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.
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 and obtained their patent for improved hemp
stripping machines, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.

You might also like