SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 118708. February 2, 1998

CRESER PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND

FACTS:
 Private respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, production,
distribution and sale of military armaments, munitions, airmunitions and other similar
materials
 Private respondent was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer (BPTTT), a Letters Patent No. UM-69383 covering an aerial fuze which was
published in the September-October 1990, Vol. III, No. 5 issue of the Bureau of Patents
Official Gazette.
 Private respondent, through its president, Mr. Gregory Floro, Jr., discovered that
petitioner submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) for testing
o He learned that petitioner was claiming the aforesaid aerial fuze as its own and
planning to bid and manufacture the same commercially without license or
authority from private respondent.
o To protect its right, private respondent sent a letter to petitioner advising it fro its
existing patent and its rights thereunder, warning petitioner of a possible court
action and/or application for injunction, should it proceed with the scheduled
testing by the military
 Petitioner, in response to private respondents demand -- filed on December 8, 1993 a
complaint for injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
o Complaint of Petitioner alleged:
 that petitioner is the first, true and actual inventor of an aerial fuze
denominated as Fuze, PDR 77 CB4 which is developed as early as
December 1981 under the Self-Reliance Defense Posture Program (SRDP)
of the AFP;
 that sometime in 1986, petitioner began supplying the AFP with the said
aerial fuze;
 that private respondents aerial fuze is identical in every respect to the
petitioners fuze; and
 that the only difference between the two fuzes are miniscule and merely
cosmetic in nature.
o Petitioner prayed that a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction be issued enjoining private respondent including any and all persons
acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing and/or profiting therefrom,
and/or from performing any other act in connection therewith or tending to
prejudice and deprive it of any rights, privileges and benefits to which it is duly
entitled as the first, true and actual inventor of the aerial fuze.
 Trial Court issued a temporary restraining order
 Thereafter, hearings were held on the application of petitioner for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction, with both parties presenting their evidence.
 After the hearings, the trial court directed the parties to submit their respective
memoranda in support of their positions.
 Private respondent submitted its memorandum alleging –
o that petitioner has no cause of action to file a complaint of infringement against it
since it has no patent for the aerial fuze which it claims to have invented;
o that petitioners available remedy is to file a petition for cancellation of patent
before the Bureau of Patents;
o that private respondent as the patent holder cannot be stripped of its property
right over the patented aerial fuze consisting of the exclusive right to
manufacture, use and sell the same and that it stands to suffer irreparable
damage and injury if it is enjoined from the exercise of its property right over its
patent.
 The trial court issued an Order granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
against private respondent
 Private respondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the trial courts
o “court finds no sufficient cause to reconsider its order”
o “During the hearing for the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the plaintiff
has amply proven its entitlement to the relief prayed for.”
o “It is undisputed that the plaintiff has developed its aerial fuze way back in 1981
while the defendant began manufacturing the same only in 1987. Thus, it is only
logical to conclude that it was the plaintiffs aerial fuze that was copied or imitated
which gives the plaintiff the right to have the defendant enjoined from
manufacturing, marketing and/or selling aerial fuzes identical to those of the
plaintiff, and from profiting therefrom and/or performing any other act in
connection therewith until further orders from this Court.
o With regards to the defendants assertion that an action for infringement may
only be brought by anyone possessing right, title or interest to the patented
invention, (Section 42, RA 165) qualified by Section 10, RA 165 to include only
the first true and actual inventor, his heirs, legal representatives to assignees, this
court finds the foregoing to be untenable.
 Sec. 10 merely enumerates the persons who may have an invention
patented which does not necessarily limit to these persons the right to
institute an action for infringement.
o Defendant further contends that the order in issue is disruptive of the status quo.
 On the contrary, the order issued by the Court in effect maintained
the status quo. The last actual , peaceable uncontested status existing
prior to this controversy was the plaintiff manufacturing and selling its
own aerial fuzes PDR 77 CB4 which was ordered stopped through the
defendants letter. With issuance of the order, the operations of the
plaintiff continue.
o Lastly, this court believes that the defendant will not suffer irreparable injury by
virtue of said order. The defendants claim is primarily hinged on its patent
(Letters Patent No. UM-6983) the validity of which is being questioned in this
case.

 Aggrieved, private respondent on June 27, 1994, filed a petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition before respondent Court of Appeals raising as grounds the
following:
o a. Petitioner has no cause of action for infringement against private respondent,
the latter not having any patent for the aerial fuze which it claims to have
invented and developed and allegedly infringed by private respondent;
 o b. The case being an action for cancellation or invalidation of private respondents
Letters Patent over its own aerial fuze, the proper venue is the Office of the
Director of Patents;
o c. The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and or in excess of jurisdiction
in finding that petitioner has fully established its clear title or right to preliminary
injunction;
o d. The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
jurisdiction in granting the preliminary injunction, it being disruptive of the
status quo; and
o e. The trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of
jurisdiction in granting the preliminary injunction thereby depriving private
respondent of its property rights over the patented aerial fuze and cause it
irreparable damages.

CA’s Ruling: reversed decision of RTC; dismissed complaint by petitioner

Petitioner’s MR was denied hence this petitioner

Petitioner’s argument – ISSUE: 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.
 may be likened to a civil action for infringement under Section 42 of the Philippine
Patent Law.

SC: above arguments are untenable

RATIONALE:

 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.
 Under the aforequoted law, only the patentee or his successors-in-interest may file an
action for infringement.
 The phrase anyone possessing any right, title or interest in and to the patented
invention upon which petitioner maintains its present suit, refers only to the patentees
successors-in-interest, assignees or grantees since actions for infringement of patent may
be brought in the name of the person or persons interested, whether as patentee,
assignees or grantees, of the exclusive right.
 Moreover, there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been issued, since
whatever right one has to the invention covered by the patent arises alone from the grant
of patent.
  In short, a person or entity who has not been granted letters patent over an invention
and has not acquired any right or title thereto either as assignee or as licensee, has no
cause of action for infringement because the right to maintain an infringement suit
depends on the existence of the patent.
 Petitioner admits it has no patent over its aerial fuze
o Therefore, it has no legal basis or cause of action to institute the petition for
injunction and damages arising from the alleged infringement by private
respondent.
 While petitioner claims to be the first inventor of the aerial fuze, still it has no right of
property over the same upon which it can maintain a suit unless it obtains a patent
therefor.

The remedy of declaratory judgment or injunctive suit on patent invalidity relied upon by
petitioner cannot be likened to the civil action for infringement under Section 42 of the Patent
Law.
 the said remedy is available only to the patent holder or his successors-in-interest. Thus,
anyone who has no patent over an invention but claims to have a right or interest thereto
can not file an action for declaratory judgment or injunctive suit which is not recognized
in this jurisdiction.
 Said person, however, is not left without any remedy. He can, under Section 28 of the
aforementioned law, file a petition for cancellation of the patent within three (3) years
from the publication of said patent with the Director of Patents and raise as ground
therefor that the person to whom the patent was issued is not the true and actual
inventor. Hence, petitioners remedy is not to file an action for injunction or infringement
but to file a petition for cancellation of private respondent patent. Petitioner however
failed to do so. As such, it can not now assail or impugn the validity of the private
respondents letters patent by claiming that it is the true and actual inventor of the aerial
fuze.
