Creser Precision vs. CA and Floro International.

Creser Precision Systems vs.
CA and Floro International Corp

GR 118708
February 2, 1998
Doctrine: There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been

issued. In short, a person or entity who has not been granted letters patent
over an invention and has not acquired any light 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.
Facts:
-Floro International (respondent) is a domestic corporation engaged in the
production and sale of military armaments, munitions and similar materials. It
was granted by the Bureau a Letters Patent No. UM-6498 covering an aerial
fuze which was published in Bureaus’s Official Gazette.
-In 1993, respondent discovered that Creser (petitioner) submitted samples of
its patented aerial fuze to the AFP for testing claiming it as its own and
planning to bid and produce the same without authority from respondent.
- Respondent sent a letter to petitioner informing him that they have patent
over such and a stern warning to desist from producing otherwise they will
take court action.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for damages arising from the alleged infringement
before RTC QC. The complaint alleges that petitioner is the true and actual
inventor of an aerial fuze which it developed in December 1981 and began
supplying the AFP in 1986. It also alleges that the aerial fuze is identical in
every respect with the petitioner’s own.
- The trial court issued a TRO.
- During trial, respondent alleged that petitioner has no cause of action since it
has on patent for the aerial fuze since respondent is the true patent holder
thus having the exclusive right to produce and sell the same.
- The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against respondent.
- Respondent filed MR but was denied.
- Aggrieved, respondent filed a petitioner for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition before CA.
- CA reversed the lower court and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner.
- Hence, this present petition.
Issue: WON Petitioner can file 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?
Held: NO. Affirmed.
Petitioner contends that it can file, under Sec 42 of the Patent Law, 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, such absence does not bar the first and true actual inventor of
the patented invention from suing another.
The Court finds the above arguments untenable. Sec 42 of the Patent Law
provides that 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” refers only to the patentee’s successors-in-
interest, assignees or grantees.
Moreover, there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has

been issued. In short, a person or entity who has not been granted letters
patent over an invention and has not acquired any light 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 aerial fuze. Therefore, it has no

legal basis or cause of action to file an action arising from the alleged
infringement by respondent. Although petitioner claims to be the first inventor
of the aerial fluze, still it has no right of property over the same. Further, the
remedy of declaratory judgment or injunctive suit on patent invalidity relied
upon petitioner cannot be likened to the civil action for infringement under Sec
42 of the Patent Law. The reason for this is that 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. Instead, he can. under Sec 28 of the of said law,
file a petition for cancellation of the patent within 3 years from the publication
of said patent with the Director of Patents and raise as ground that the person
to whom the patent was issued is not the true and actual inventor. Hence,
petitioner’s remedy is not an action for infringement but an petition for
cancellation or respondent’s patent.

Creser Precision vs. CA and Floro International.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creser Precision vs. CA and Floro International.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creser Precision vs. CA and Floro International.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creser Precision Systems vs.

CA and Floro International Corp

Doctrine: There can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has been

Held: NO. Affirmed.

Moreover, there can be no infringement of a patent until a patent has

Petitioner admits it has no patent over aerial fuze. Therefore, it has no

You might also like