G.R. No. 214148 , February 6, 2023
PHILLIPS SEAFOOD PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. TUNA PROCESSORS, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Tuna Processors, Inc.’s predecessor-in-interest, Kanemitsu Yamaoka, owned Philippine Patent No. I-31138 for a “Method for Curing Fish and Meat by Extra Low Temperature Smoking.” The patented process’s independent claim involves curing tuna meat by exposing it to filtered smoke that has been cooled in a cooling unit to a temperature between 0° and 5°C. Yamaoka filed an administrative complaint for patent infringement against petitioner Phillips Seafood Philippines Corporation, alleging it appropriated this patented process. Petitioner denied infringement, asserting its process does not use a cooling unit for the smoke; instead, the filtered smoke is cooled to ambient temperature before being injected into the tuna meat. The Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office dismissed the complaint, a decision initially affirmed by the IPO Director General and the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals later amended its ruling, finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Phillips Seafood Philippines Corporation infringed Patent No. I-31138 owned by respondent Tuna Processors, Inc., either through literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents.

RULING

No, there was no patent infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents.
1. On Literal Infringence: There is no exact identity of all material elements between the patented process and petitioner’s process. A comparison shows:
Steps 1 (Burning) and 2 (Filtering) are identical.
Step 3 (Cooling): The patent requires cooling the filtered smoke in a cooling unit to between 0° and 5°C. Petitioner’s process cools the smoke only to ambient temperature.
* Step 4 (Application): The patent involves exposing the tuna meat to the pre-cooled smoke. Petitioner’s process involves smoking and injection of the smoke directly into the meat.
* Step 5: Petitioner has an additional step of cooling the tuna meat (already injected with smoke) to 4°C-5°C or -3°C.
The absence of exact identity in all material elements precludes a finding of literal infringement.
2. On the Doctrine of Equivalents: Infringement under this doctrine requires that the accused process appropriates the prior invention’s innovative concept and performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. The innovative step of Patent No. I-31138 is the unique cooling of the filtered smoke to between 0° and 5°C before it is applied to the tuna meat to achieve specific preservative and sterilizing effects. This step is absent in petitioner’s process, which cools the smoke only to ambient temperature before injection and then cools the meat-smoke combination after injection. There was no evidence adduced to establish that petitioner’s different sequence and temperature of cooling performs substantially the same function in the same way to achieve the same result as the patented process. Therefore, there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.