CRESER PRECISION SYSTEM INC. VS. CA AND FLORO INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Creser Precision System Inc. vs. CA  and FLORO International corp.

GR No. 118708

February 2, 1998

PONENTE: MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:

Private respondent Floro is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of military armaments, munitions, airmunitions and other similar materials. On Jan. 23, 1990, private respondent Floro was granted by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer a Letters Patent covering an aerial fuze.

However, Floro’s President, Mr. Gregory Floro discovered that petitioner Creser submitted samples of its patented aerial fuze to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for testing and that petitioner is claiming the aerial fuze as its own and planning to bid and manufacture it commercially.

Petitioner Creser contends that it is the first, true and actual inventor of an aerial fuze denominated as which it 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 respondent's aerial fuze is identical in every respect to the petitioner's fuze; and that the only difference between the two fuzes are miniscule and merely cosmetic in nature.

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.

RTC issued a TRO and later on granted the preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff against private respondent. While CA reversed the RTC’s decision and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether 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?

RULING:

NO. Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly provides:

Sec. 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. . . .

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 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 its aerial fuze. 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.