YES. Under the Intellectual Property Code, discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods, are classified to be as "non-patentable inventions." Einstein's theory of relativity falls within the category of being a non-patentable "scientific theory."(Sec. 22, IPC as amended by R.A. 9502)
A patent for a product confers upon its owner the exclusive right of importing the product. The importation of a patented product without authorization of the owner of a patent constitutes infringement of the patent. X can prevent the parallel importation of such shoes by Y without its authorization.
NO, the patent application for Disilopis should not be granted. The use of the existing patent, although for a different purpose, will not satisfy the elements of novelty and inventive step.
Under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement of patent occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and albeit with some modifications and change performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result. (Godines v. CA, 226 SCRA 338)
I would not exempt the alleged violator from liability for the following reasons:
1. A patent once issued by the Patent Office raises a presumption that the article is patentable; it can, however be shown otherwise. A mere statement or allegation is not enough to destroy that presumption.
2. An intention to infringe is not necessary nor an element in a case for infringement of a patent.
3. There is no need of exact duplication of the patentee’s existing patent such as when the improvement made by another is merely minor. To be independently patentable, an improvement of an existing patented invention must be a major improvement.
The estranged husband of Che-che cannot successfully contest the application. The right over inventions accrue from the moment of creation and as a right it can lawfully be assigned. Once the title thereto is vested in the transferee, the latter has the right to apply for its registration. The estranged husband of Che- che, if not disqualified to inherit, merely would succeed to the interest of Che-che.
a. The following are the remedies available to Ferdie against Johann:
1. Seize and destroy
2. Injunction
3. Damages in such amount may have been obtained from the use of the invention if properly transacted which can be more than what the infringer (Johann) received.
4. Attorney’s fees and costs.
b. These are the defenses that can be asserted in an infringement suit:
1. Patent is invalid
2. Patent is not new or patentable
3. Specification of the invention does not comply with Sec.14
4. Patent was issued not to the true and actual inventor, designer or author of the utility model or the plaintiff did not derive his rights from the true and actual inventor, designer or author of the utility model.
I will advice KU to seek for the cancellation of the Kluwer Graduate School of Business of Mindanao with the Bureau of Trademarks. Jinggy’s registration of the mark “Kluwer” should not have been allowed because the law prohibits the registration of the mark “which may disparage or falsely suggests a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs”. Moreover, the Philippines is a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property (Paris Convention), it is obligated to assure nationals of countries of the Paris Convention that they are afforded an effective protection against violation of their intellectual property rights in the Philippines. Thus, under the Philippine law, a trade name of a national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention, whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is protected “without the obligation of filing or registration”.
The defense of W Hotel is tenable. Having a hotel establishment in the Philippines with the trademark W is not the only way to prove actual use of the trademark. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of the mark on an interactive website sufficiently showing an intent towards realizing a within State commercial activity or interaction is considered actual use to keep the trademark registration in force. That W Hotel was able to present proof of actual booking transactions made by Philippine residents through such website proves that the use of its "W" mark through its interactive website is intended to produce a discernible commercial effect or activity within the Philippines, or at the very least, seeks to establish commercial interaction with local consumers. This is enough to keep its trademark registration in force. (W Land Holdings, Inc. v. Starwood Hotels And Resorts Worldwide, Inc., G.R. No. 222366, December 4, 2017)
The application for registration by Turbo Corporation may be contested. The Trademark Law would not allow the registration of a trademark which, when applied to or used in connection with his products, is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them. Confusion can result from the result from the use of “Axilon” as the generic product itself.
