GR 14101; (September, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. 14101; September 24, 1919
ANGEL VARGAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. F. M. YAPTICO & CO. (Ltd.), defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
Angel Vargas, a farmer, invented an improved, adjustable plow based on the native model. He applied for a United States patent on July 22, 1910, which was granted on March 12, 1912. The patent was registered in the Philippines on April 24, 1912. Vargas manufactured and sold these plows in Iloilo, stamping them with “Patent Applied For” and later “Patented Mar. 12, 1912.” The defendant, F. M. Yaptico & Co., a foundry in Iloilo, manufactured and sold replacement parts (points, shares, shoes, and heel pieces) specifically adapted for the Vargas plow. Vargas filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to enjoin the alleged patent infringement and recover damages. The trial court, after a stipulation to first resolve the infringement issue, ruled in favor of the defendant, declaring Vargas’s patent null and void for lack of novelty and invention, and dismissed the suit. Vargas appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether the patent granted to Angel Vargas is valid and enforceable against the defendant.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, declaring the patent invalid and dismissing the suit. The Court did not base its decision on the lack of novelty or invention, nor on the question of whether manufacturing replacement parts constituted infringement. Instead, it held the patent invalid due to prior public use. The Court found that the preponderance of evidence established that the Vargas plow was in public use, with the inventor’s consent, for more than two years before his patent application on July 22, 1910. Under the applicable U.S. Patent Laws (made applicable in the Philippines by Act No. 2235), an invention that has been in public use in the country for more than two years prior to the application is not patentable. Since the public use was proven to have occurred before July 22, 1908, the patent was void. The decision was rendered without prejudice to the resolution of damages related to the preliminary injunction. Costs were taxed against the appellant.