Angelita Manzano vs. CA, et al GR No. 113388Sept. 5, 1997

FACTS

Petitioner Angelita Manzano filed with the Philippine Patent Office an action for the cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 for a gas burner registered in the name of respondent Melecia Madolaria who subsequently assigned the letters patent to New United Foundry and Manufacturing Corporation. Petitioner alleged that (a) the utility model covered by the letters patent, in this case, an LPG gas burner, was not inventive, new or useful; (b) the specification of the letters patent did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 14, RA No. 165, as amended; (c) respondent Melecia Madolaria was not the original, true and actual inventor nor did she derive her rights from the original, true and actual inventor of the utility model covered by the letters patent; and, (d) the letters patent was secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Director of Patents issued Decision No. 86-56 denying the petition for cancellation and holding that the evidence of petitioner was not able to establish convincingly that the patented utility model of private respondent was anticipated. No evidence whatsoever was presented by petitioner to show that the then applicant Melecia Madolaria withheld with intent to deceive material facts which, if disclosed, would have resulted in the refusal by the Philippine Patent Office to issue the Letters Patent under inquiry.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in upholding the decision of the Director of Patents.

RULING: NO. In issuing Letters Patent to respondent Madolaria for an LPG Burner, the PPO found her invention novel and patentable. The issuance of such patent creates a presumption which yields only to clear and cogent evidence that the patentee was the original and first inventor. The burden of proving want of novelty is on him who avers it and the burden is a heavy one which is met only by clear and satisfactory proof which overcomes every reasonable doubt.

As found by the Director of Patents, the standard of evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of legality of the issuance of letters patent to respondent Madolaria was not legally met by petitioner in her action for the cancellation of the patent. The findings and conclusions of the Director of Patent were reiterated and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The rule is settled that the findings of fact of the Director of Patents, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by substantial evidence.

The validity of the patent issued by the PPO in favor of private respondent and the question over the inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the LPG burner are matters which are better determined by the PPO. The technical staff of the Philippine Patent Office composed of experts in their field has by the issuance of the patent in question accepted private respondents model of gas burner as a discovery. There is a presumption that the Office has correctly determined the patentability of the model and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary.