Creser Precision Systems Inc. v CA and Floro International Co. GR NO. 118708, February 2, 1998

Facts: 

Respondent was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Letter of patent for its aerial fuze on January 23, 1990. Sometime in 1993, respondent discovered that the petitioner submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the AFP for testing claiming to be his own. To protect its right, respondent sent letter of warning to petitioner on a possible court action should it proceed its testing by the AFP. In response the petitioner filed a complaint for injunction and damages arising from alleged infringement before the RTC asserting that it is the true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze which it developed on 1981 under the Self Reliance Defense Posture Program of the AFP. It has been supplying the military of the aerial fuze since then and that the fuze of the respondent is similar as that of the petitioner. Petitioner prayed for restraining order and injunction from marketing, manufacturing and profiting from the said invention by the respondent. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner citing the fact that it was the first to develop the aerial fuze since 1981 thsu it concludes that it is the petitioner’s aerial fuze that was copied by the respondent. Moreover, the claim of respondent is solely based on its letter of patent which validity is being questioned. On appeal, respondent argued that the petitioner has no cause of action since he has no right to assert there being no patent issued to his aerial fuze. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. It was the contention of the petitioner that it can file under Section 42 of the Patent Law an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in possession of a right, title or interest to the patented invention. It theorizes that while the absence of a patent prevents one from lawfully suing another for infringement of said patent, such absence does not bar the true and actual inventor of the patented invention from suing another in the same nature as a civil action for infringement.




Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner has the right to assail the validity of the patented work of the respondent? 

Ruling:

The court finds the argument of the petitioner untenable. Section 42 of the Law on Patent (RA 165) provides that only the patentee or his successors-in-interest may file an action against infringement. What the law contemplates in the phrase “anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention” refers only to the patentee’s successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees since the action on patent infringement may be brought only in the name of the person granted with the patent. There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued since the right one has over the invention covered by the patent arises from the grant of the patent alone. Therefore, a person who has not been granted letter of patent over an invention has not acquired right or title over the invention and thus has no cause of action for infringement. Petitioner admitted to have no patent over his invention. Respondent’s aerial fuze is covered by letter of patent issued by the Bureau of Patents thus it has in his favor not only the presumption of validity of its patent but that of a legal and factual first and true inventor of the invention.