G.R. No. L-24112 July 23, 1974
ONG SHIAO KONG and CU WU KIAM, petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and PESSUMAL TOLARAM, respondents.

FACTS

On November 20, 1961, private respondent Pessumal Tolaram filed a petition for the cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-135, issued to petitioners Ong Shiao Kong and Cu Wu Kiam for a “flash water heater.” Tolaram alleged that his own earlier patented utility model (UM-66) for an “instant water heater” was substantially similar. During the proceedings, the hearing officer allowed Tolaram to utilize the petitioners as adverse witnesses. Their testimony revealed that Cu Wu Kiam was merely a financier and not a co-inventor, contrary to the representation in their patent application.
The Director of Patents initially cancelled UM-135 on February 11, 1964, citing American case law that a joint patent is void if the invention was made solely by one of the patentees. An amended decision on January 18, 1965, further held that the petitioners’ model embodied the novel features of Tolaram’s model concerning the construction and arrangement of electrodes. The petitioners sought review, challenging the hearing officer’s authority and the findings on co-invention and patent dominance.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review of the cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-135 has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The Supreme Court required the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to the possible expiration of the patents under Section 58 of Republic Act No. 165 , as amended. The Director of Patents certified that both Letters Patent No. UM-66 (Tolaram) and UM-135 (petitioners) had expired on September 24, 1969, and July 6, 1969, respectively, for failure of the patentees to file applications for extension within the periods prescribed by law. The respondent agreed to dismissal, and the petitioners filed no contrary manifestation.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle of mootness. A case becomes moot when there is no longer any justiciable controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. The core dispute—the validity and potential infringement between two utility model patents—was extinguished when both patents expired by operation of law without renewal. A judicial resolution on the propriety of the cancellation would serve no practical or useful purpose, as the rights conferred by the patents had already lapsed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction, as no live controversy remained for adjudication.