PATRICK HENRY FRANK AND WILLIAM HENRY GOHN v. CONSTANCIO BENITO G.R. No. L-27793 Mar! "#$ "92%$ &o!'($ &. Fa)(* Patrick Henry Frank and William Henry Gohn are the owners of a patent covering hemp-stripping machine No. 1515! iss"ed to them #y the $nited %tates Patent &f'ice and d"ly registered in the ("rea" of )ommerce and *nd"stry of the Philippine *slands "nder the provisions of +ct No. ,,5 Frank Frank and Gohn allege that )onstancio )onstancio (enito (enito man"fact" man"fact"red red a hemp-stri hemp-stripping pping machine witho"t a"thority from the plaintiffs and has em#odied and "sed s"ch spindles and their method of application and "se and is e/hi#iting his machine to the p"#lic for the p"rpose of ind"cing its p"rchase. Frank and Gohn stress that "se #y (enito of s"ch spindles and the principle of their application to the stripping of hemp is in violation of and in con'lict with Frank and Gohn0s patent together with its conditions and speci'ications. (eca"se of the alleged infringement Frank Gohn 'iled an action for in2"nction and damages against (enito. (enito contends that he had no prior knowledge of the prior e/istence of the hempstripping invention of Frank Frank and Gohn nor had any intent to imitate the prod"ct. prod"ct. 3ikewise 3ikewise the defendant contended that the facts alleged therein do not constit"te a ca"se of action that it is am#ig"o"s and vag"e. 4he lower co"rt rendered 2"dgment in favor of the Frank and Gohn to which was later af'irmed #y the appellate co"rt. I((+,* Whether or not espondent is lia#le for patent infringement. R+'/* 6es. +s a r"le the #"rden of proof to s"#stantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. Where however the plaintiff introd"ces the patent in evidence if it is in d"e form it affords a prima facie pres"mption of its correctness and validity. validity. 4he decision of the )ommissioner of Patents in granting the patent is always pres"med to #e correct. 4he #"rd #"rden en the the shif shifts ts to the the defe defend ndan antt to over overco come me #y comp compet eten entt evid eviden ence ce this this lega legall pres"mption. 4he patent in the case at #ar having #een introd"ced in evidence affords a prima facie pres"mption of its correctness and validity. Hence this is not a case of a con'lict #etween two different patents. *n the recent of 4emco 7lectric 8otor )o. vs. +pco 8fg. )o. decided #y the %"preme )o"rt of the $nited %tates r"led that a person cannot appropriate the #asic patent of another another and if he does so witho"t license he is lia#le as an infringer infringer and may #e s"ed as s"ch.
