Creser v. CA
Creser v. CA
Creser v. CA
ARGUMENT
- It is petitioners contention that it can file, under Section 42 of the Patent Law
(R.A. 165), an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in
possession of a right, title or interest in and to the patented invention.
- It advances the theory that while the absence of a patent may prevent one
from lawfully suing another for infringement of said patent, such absence
does not bar the first true and actual inventor of the patented invention from
suing another who was granted a patent in a suit for declaratory or injunctive
relief recognized under American patent laws.
- This remedy, petitioner points out, may be likened to a civil action for
infringement under Section 42 of the Philippine Patent Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not it can file a writ of P.I/
HELD: No, We find the above arguments untenable. CA DECISION AFFIRMED
RATIO:
Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides:
SECTION. 42. Civil action for infringement. Any patentee, or anyone possessing any
right, title or interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights have been
infringed, may bring a civil action before the proper Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial court), to recover from the infringer damages sustained by reason of
the infringement and to secure an injunction for the protection of his right. x x x
-
Thus, as correctly ruled by the respondent Court of Appeals in its assailed decision:
since the petitioner (private respondent herein) is the patentee of the disputed
invention embraced by letters of patent UM No. 6938 issued to it on January 23, 1990
by the Bureau of Patents, it has in its favor not only the presumption of validity of its
patent, but that of a legal and factual first and true inventor of the invention.