Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Evaluation: 40% of the grade is based on a 2-hour final exam. 30% of the grade is based on
participation in class and the remaining 30% is based on quizzes/short writing
assignments.
I. Course Description
The Philippine government has long adhered to the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR).
Consistent with the country’s commitment to honor international treaties, covenants and agreements,
the Philippines has continued to promulgate laws, regulations and administrative procedures on IPR
related matters aimed at ensuring respect for IPR. With the promulgation of the Intellectual Property
Code (Republic Act No. 8293), the Philippines complied with its international undertakings and provided
better protection for IPR.
This is a survey course covering the main areas of intellectual property law - patents, copyrights,
trademarks, and trade secrets. It introduces each subject and explores commonalities and differences
among different systems of intellectual property protection. It also gives an understanding of the
philosophy and application of IP Law.
The course seeks to impart to the student skills, knowledge, attitudes and values in IP Law. These
include:
1. Skills in the application of IP theory in order to be a competent lawyer, advocate, strategist and
administrator.
2. IP knowledge to appreciate conceptual and practical applications, government policy and
business transactions.
3. Attitudes to apply IP as a key to economic development in the Philippines.
4. Values on how to apply IP skills and knowledge positively to Philippine development.
Class 1
1. OVERVIEW
Philosophical Perspective
1
Question(s) for Discussion: What are the philosophical foundations for the protection
of IP and how do they compare with those for tangible property?
Personhood Perspective
Margaret Jane Radin, Property and Personhood
34 Stanford Law Review 957 (1982)
Class Homework: Prepare a Reaction Paper to the Philosophical Perspectives behind IPRs.
Class 2
Question(s) for Discussion: Of what value is the public domain and what information
belongs there? What role should property and contract law play in supporting the
production and distribution of information in the marketplace?
2. CONSTITUTION
3. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
3.1. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works as revised in Brussels
(Brussel Act)
3.2. Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention)
3.3. International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention)
3.5. Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the
Purposes of Patent Procedure
3.6. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, Including trade in Counterfeit
Goods of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Articles 1-14, 40-73.
2
5.1. Legislative History
5.1.1. Republic Act No. 165
5.1.2. Republic Act No. 8293 (“IPC”)
Sec. 239.1, IPC
Sec. 235.1, IPC
Sec. 236.1, IPC
5.1.3. R.A. No. 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)
(Amended IPC)
5.2.4. Combination
5.3. Purpose
CASE: Manzano v. CA, 278 SCRA 688
Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
5.4.1. Inventions
Section 21, IPC
Standards:
5.4.1.1. Novelty
Sections 23-25, IPC
5.4.1.2. Inventiveness
Section 26, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008
3
CASE: The Incandescent Lamp Patent 159 US 465 (1895)
The Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp. 134 F.3d 1473
(Fed. Cir. 1998)
Infringement
CASE: Del Rosario v. CA and Jacinto Corp. 255 SCRA 152 (1996)
Class 4
5.7. Regular Application for Patent
5.7.1. Who may apply?
Sections 28-30, IPC
Section 68, IPC
Section 3, IPC
Section 231, IPC
4
Section 235, IPC
5.7.2. Application
Section 32-37, IPC
Section 38, IPC
Section 39, IPC
Section 8, IPC
Sections 108, 109.2, IPC (Utility Models)
Section 114-115, IPC (Industrial Design)
Requirements:
Extent of protection and interpretation of Claims (Sec. 75)
5.7.12. Amendment
Section 49, IPC
5.7.13. Conversion
Sections 110 and 111, IPC
5.8. Philippine Rules on PCT Applications (Pursuant to Patent Cooperation Treaty ratified by the
Senate on 5 February 2001, PCT took effect for the Philippines on 17 August 2001)
5
Section 51, IPC
Section 53, IPC
Sections 117 and 119, IPC (Industrial Design)
CASE: Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No.
167715, 17 November 2010
Class 5
5.14. Petition for Cancellation of Patent or Claim
5.14.1. Grounds [Sec. 61, 67.1 (d), 68]
CASE: Cresser Precision Systems v. CA Supra.
Section 61, IPC
Section 82, IPC
Section 109.4, IPC (Utility Model)
Section 120, IPC (Industrial Design)
5.14.2. Proceedings
Sections 62-66, IPC
Section 230, IPC
6
CASE: Vargas v. F.M. Yaptico, supra
Frank v. Benito, 51 Phil. 712
Frank v. Kosuyama, 59 Phil. 206
5.17. Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC)
5.17.1. Civil Action for Infringement
Section 76, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
Section 75, IPC
CASE: Parke Davis & Co. v. Doctor’s Pharmaceuticals 104 SCRA 700 (1981)
5.17.1.1. Sanctions
5.17.1.2. Contributory Infringer (nature of liability) (Sec. 76.6)
CASE: C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 911
F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. 418 F. 3d 1282 (Fed. Cir.
2005)
5.17.1.3. Jurisdiction (Sections 67, 68, 69, 76, 82, and 84.)
5.17.3. Administrative
Section 10.2, IPC
5.17.5. Presumptions
Section 78, IPC
5.17.6. Damages
Secs. 79-80, IPC
CASE: Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir.
1978)
7
Inequitable Conduct
CASE: Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. V. Hollister, Inc. 863 F.2d 867
(Fed. Cir. 1988)
Exhaustion of Patent Rights
CASE: Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008)
Patent Misuse
CASE: Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing
Company, et. al. 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
Assessors
Section 83, IPC
5.19. Licensing
5.19.1. Voluntary
Sections 83, IPC
5.19.2. Compulsory
Sections 93-95, IPC, as amended by RA No. 9502
Sections 96-102, IPC
CASE: Prince v. United Laboratories, 166 SCRA 133 (1988) The Director of Patents may
fix the terms and conditions of the compulsory license if the parties cannot agree
on them.
Smith Kline v. CA, 276 SCRA 224 (1997)
Smith Kline v. CA, 368 SCRA 9 (2001)
Class 7
8
Rules 11-12, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
Sec. 2, PD 49
Article 5(2), Berne convention for the Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works
Section 172 and 172.2, IPC
Rule 7, Sections 2-4, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
CASE: Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1978)
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International 526 U.S. 233 (1996)
Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble 379 F.2d 675 (1967)
Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir.
1987)
Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises 470 SCRA 364
(2005)
Class 8
9
Rule 14, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
CASE: Filipino Society of Composers v. Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
Philippine Education Co. v. Sotto, 52 Phil. 580
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 US 539 (1989)
Ann Bartow, Educational Fair Use in Copyright: Reclaiming the Right to
Photocopy Freely, 60 University of Pittsburg Law Review, 149 (1998)
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. 60 F.3d 913 (1994)
Campbell v. Acuff-Row Music, Inc. 510 US 569 (1994)
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd. 448 F.3d 605 (2006)
Blanch v. Koons 467 F. 3d 244 (2006)
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Acolade, Inc. 977 F. 2d 1510 (1992)
In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. October 12, 2010.
In The Matter of The Charges of Plagiarism, Etc. Against Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17 SC, February 8, 2011.
Class 9
6.11. Infringement
Definition
Remedies
Sections 221-224, IPC
Sec. 3, IPC
Sections 10.2, IPC
Sections 216-220, IPC
Sections 225-226, IPC
Sec. 231, IPC
CASE: Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual
Property Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC)
20th Century Fox v. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 144 (1996)
People v. Ramos, 83 SCRA 1 (1978)
Serrano Laktaw v. Paglinawan, 44 Phil. 855
Habana v. Robles, 310 SCRA 511 (1999)
Joaquin v. Drilon, 302 SCRA 225 (1999)
Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 487 F. 3d 711 (2007)
Sheldon v. Metro Goldwyn Pictures Corp. 309 US 390 (1940)
ABSCBN Corp. vs. Felipe Gozon, et. al. G.R. No. 195196, March 11, 2015
10
6.14. Neighboring Rights
Sec. 202, IPC
Sec. 212, IPC
6.14.1. Rights of Performers
Sections 203-207, IPC
Sec. 215, IPC
6.14.2. Rights of Procedures of Sound Recording
Sections 208-210, IPC
Sec. 215, IPC
6.16. R.A. No. 9239 (Optical Media Act) and the Optical Media Board Rules of Procedure
CASE: Unno Commercial Enterprises v. General Milling Corp., 120 SCRA 904
Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC, 203 SCRA 583
Philip Morris v. CA, 224 SCRA 576
Philip Morris v. Fortune Tobacco, GR No. 158589, 27 June 2006
Shangrila v. DCCI, GR No. 159938, 31 March 2006
Shangrila v DCCI, Gr No. 159938, 22 January 2007
Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. Vs. Norvy Abyadang G.R. No. 183404, 13 October 2010)
E.Y. Industrial Sales, Inc. and Engracio Yap vs. Shendar Electricity and Machinery Co.
Ltd. G.R. No. 184850 (20 October 2010)
Ecole de Cuisine Manille (Cordon Bleu of the Philippines), Inc. vs. Renaud Cointreau &
Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Int’l. B.V. No. 185830 (15 June 2013)
Birkenstock Orthopaedie GmbH vs. Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation G.R.
No. 194307 (November 20, 2013)
11
CASE: Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc.
Class 11
7.6.3. Examination
Sec. 133 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 126, IPC
Sec. 129, IPC
7.6.4. Publication
Sec. 133.2, IPC
7.6.5. Opposition
Sections 134 and 135, IPC
CASE: Bata Industries v. CA, 114 SCRA 318
Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)
Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. 469 U.S. 189 (1985)
Taiwan Kolin Corporation vs. Kolin Electronics G.R. No. 209843 (March
25, 2015)
12
Sections 136 and 137, IPC
Sec. 138, IPC
Sec. 139, IPC
Sec. 144 (and its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Sec. 4.2, IPC
7.6.10. Renewal
Sec. 146 (and Its sub-paragraphs), IPC
Class 12
7.8. Infringement
7.8.1. Use as a Trademark
CASE: Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. 562 F. 3d 123 (2009)
7.8.3. Dilution
CASE: Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC 507 F. 3d 252 (2007)
Tiffany (NJ), Inc. v. eBay, Inc. 600 F. 3d 93 (2010)
13
CASE: Johnson & Johnson, Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co.v. SmithKline
Beecham Corp. 960 F. 2d 294 (1992)
Class 13
7.9. Remedies
Sec. 3, IPC
Sec. 160, IPC
Sec. 231, IPC
CASE: Leviton Industries v. Salvador, 114 SCRA 420
Puma v. IAC, 158 SCRA 233
La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373
The Murphy Door Bed Co., Inc. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc. 874 F. 2d 95
(1989)
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 532 U.S. 23 (2001)
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd. 817 F.
Supp. 1103 (1993)
Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Heart’s Food Stores, Inc. 267 F. 2d 358 (1959)
KP Permanent Make-up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression, Inc. 548 U.S. 111 (2004)
Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records 296 F. 3d 894
Lindy Pen Company, Inc. v. Bic Pen Corporation 982 F. 2d 1400 (1993)
Big O’Tire Dealers, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 561 F. 2d
1365 (1977)
CASE: IN-N-OUT Burger vs. Sehwani G.R. No. 179127 (December 24, 2008)
Prohibition of Importation
Sec. 166, IPC
14
CASE: Rules on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of
Intellectual Property Rights (A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC)
Etepha A.G. v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495 (1966)
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CA, 116 SCRA 338
Fruit of the Loom v. CA, 133 SCRA 405 (1984)
Del Monte Corp. v. CA, 181 SCRA 410
Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437
Conrad v. CA, 246 SCRA 691
Emerald Garment Manufacturing v. CA, 251 SCRA 600
Amigo v. Cluett Peabody, 354 SCRA 434 (2001)
Societe Des Produits Nestle v. CA, 356 SCRA 207 (2001)
Mighty Corporation v. E.J. Gallo Winery, 434 SCRA 473 (2007)
McDonald’s Corp. v. L.C. Big Mak, 437 SCRA 10 (2004)
McDonald’s Corp. v. Macjoy Fastfood Corp., 514 SCRA 95 (2007)
Skechers vs. Inter Pacific Trading G.R. No. 164321 28 March 2911)
Class 14
7.10.1.3. Difference between infringement and Unfair Competition
CASE: Del Monte Corporation v. CA, 181 SCRA 410
Pro Line Sports Center v. CA, 281 SCRA 162
Universal Rubber Products v. CA, 130 SCRA 162
Converse Rubber Corp. v. Jacinto Rubber and Plastic Co., 97
SCRA 158
Asia Brewery v. CA, 224 SCRA 437 (1993)
Solid Triangle v. Sheriff, 370 SCRA 491 (2001)
Sony Computer v. Supergreen, Inc., GR No. 161823, 22 March
2007
Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites, Inc. vs. IN-N-OUT Burger,
Inc., 536 SCRA 255 (2007)
Coca Cola v. Gomez, GR No. 154491, November 14, 2008
Superior Commercial Enterprises v. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., GR
No. 169974. April 20, 2010
7.11. Tradenames
7.11.1. Definition
Sec. 121.3, IPC
15
CASE: Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Rubber Products, 117 SCRA 154
Research in Motion v. Georges Elias, Case No. D2009-0218, WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation Center
(http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0218.html)
Class 15
Class 16
Final Exams
16