Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue

CARLOS GSELL vs.
VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE means of a small lamp or blowpipe, fed by petroleum or mineral
G.R. No. L-4720 January 19, 1909 fuel."
FACTS: Thereafter the defendant continued to manufacture

The principal case to which these proceedings are curved cane handles for walking sticks and umbrellas by a
ancillary, was an action to enjoin infringement of a patented process in all respects identical with that used by the plaintiff
process for manufacture of curved handles for canes, under his patent, except only that he substituted for a lamp
parasols, and umbrellas. In that case, plaintiff established his fed with petroleum or mineral oil, a lamp fed with alcohol.
title to a valid patent covering the process in question, and
obtained against this defendant a judgment, granting a The trial court found the defendant not guilty of
perpetual injunction restraining its infringement, which contempt as charged; and this court, on appeal, held that
judgment was affirmed by this Court on appeal. The order The violation, if there has been any, was not of such a
was couched in the following terms: character that it could be made patent by the mere
annunciation of the acts performed by the defendant, which
It is ordered that the defendant abstain from manufacturing are alleged to constitute the said violation. Consequently, the
canes and umbrellas with a curved handle by means of a contempt with which the accused is charged has not been
lamp or blowpipe fed with mineral oil or petroleum, which fully and satisfactorily proved, and the order appealed from
process was protected by patent no. 19288, issued in favor of should accordingly be affirmed in so far as it holds that the
Henry Gsell, and by him transferred to Carlos Gsell. defendant is not guilty of contempt. Substantially, the same
question is submitted in these new proceedings as that
and the process therein mentioned is fully described in the submitted in the former case.
following statement which accompanied the application for
the patent: After the canes have been cut for cane or umbrella ISSUE:
handles, the outsides are thoroughly cleaned. This operation having Whether the use of a patented process by a third
been performed, they are then trimmed and the interior cleaned by person, without license or authority therefore, constitutes an
means of a gimlet of about 15 centimeters in length operated by a infringement when the alleged infringer has substituted in
wheel, by means of which the knots inside are broken. There is then lieu of some unessential part of the patented process a well-
introduced to a depth of about 15 centimeters a piece of very clean known mechanical equivalent?
bamboo, which completely fills the hole made by the gimlet,
thereby giving to the cane the necessary strength to resist the heat
HELD:
of the lamp or blowpipe without breaking or cracking.
Counsel for plaintiff invokes the doctrine of
This operation having been performed, the cane, the end of which mechanical equivalents in support of his contention, and
is attached to a fixed point, is given the shape of a hook or some indeed that doctrine is applicable to the facts of the case.
other form by means of fire and pressure. Once the cane has been This doctrine is founded upon sound rules of reason and
shaped as desired, it is allowed to cool, and is then cleaned, logic, and unless restrained or modified by law in particular
varnished, and ornamented at will. jurisdiction, is of universal application, so that it matters not
whether a patent be issued by one sovereignty or another,
This industry requires skillful, handiwork, owing to the great risk the doctrine may properly be invoked to protect the patentee
engendered by the treatment of such fragile material as a light from colorable invasions of his patent under the guise of a
cane. On the other hand, however, it affords large profits to the
substitution of some part of his invention by some well-
workman. NOTE. The patent applied for shall be for the industrial
product "cane handles for walking sticks and umbrellas, curved by
known mechanical equivalent.
The use of a process in all respects identical with a a contempt, under the provision of section 172 of the Code
process protected by a valid patent, save only that a well- of Civil Procedure.
known mechanical equivalent is substituted in lieu of some
particular part of the patented process is an infringement The judgment of the lower court should be and is
upon the rights of the owner of the patent, which will be hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance
enjoined in appropriate proceeding, and the use of such against the appellant.
process, after the order enjoining its use has been issued, is

Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-Jue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARLOS GSELL vs.

FACTS: Thereafter the defendant continued to manufacture

You might also like