IP ALL STARS (REAL)

concepts and doctrines

Sanrio v. Lim

For liability under copyright infringement (Sec. 217.3, IP Code), mere possession and sale of infringing goods is not enough. There must be knowledge or reason to know that the goods are infringing copies; good faith reliance on authorized suppliers negates criminal liability.

NBI-MICROSOFT CORP V. HWANG,

Copyright infringement is committed not only by

the unauthorized manufacture of protected works but by the unauthorized performance of any act exclusively reserved to the copyright owner, such as copying, distributing, selling, or installing copyrighted software, regardless of whether the infringer claims a contractual relationship with the owner..

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc v. Dadodette Entreprises

Copyright protection subsists only in original intellectual creations. Certificates of registration are merely prima facie evidence and do not conclusively establish ownership or originality. Courts may disregard such certificates where evidence shows lack of originality.

Ong Ching Kian Chuan v. CA

To be entitled to copyright protection, a person must be the original creator of the work, having produced it through his own skill, labor, and judgment, and not by directly copying or imitating another. A copyright certificate does not automatically establish a clear and unmistakable right when originality is seriously disputed.

Habana v. Robles

In copyright infringement, substantial reproduction is enough; total or verbatim copying is not necessary. If what is taken substantially appropriates the labor of the original author or sensibly diminishes the value of the original work, infringement may exist.

Microsoft Corp v. Maxicorp Inc.

In copyright infringement cases, probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt or conclusive proof of sale. It is sufficient that the facts would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that infringement was committed and that the items sought are in the place to be searched.

ABS CBN v. Felip Gozon Et al.

Copyright protection subsists only in original intellectual creations. Certificates of registration are merely prima facie evidence and do not conclusively establish ownership or originality. Courts may disregard such certificates where evidence shows lack of originality.

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO,

Plagiarism requires deliberate and knowing appropriation of another’s work as one’s own; absence of intent to deceive negates plagiarism. Citation errors or accidental omission of attribution do not constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement, especially where the material used consists of common legal knowledge or public domain concepts.

FILIPINO SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, INC. V. TAN,

Copyright protection subsists only in original intellectual creations. Certificates of registration are merely prima facie evidence and do not conclusively establish ownership or originality. Courts may disregard such certificates where evidence shows lack of originality.

Right of Attribution / PIA (193.1)

Prominent credit where practicable

Indication of the author’s name on copies

Attribution in connection with public use of the work

Right to alter/withhold publication / ReCo (193.2)

Revision or mod before release;

Complete withdrawal from publication

Right of integrity/DAD (193.3)

Distortion/mutilation;

Any prejudicial treatment;

Derogatory mods

economic rights; transferable/licensable

Reproduction

Derivative works
First public distribution

Rent

Public display/performance

Communication

moral/nontransferable rights

attribution

alteration/withhold publication

integrity

restrain use of name

SANTOS V. MCCULLOUGH

Under Paragraph 33, a work must be copyrighted within 30 days (Manila) or 60 days (elsewhere) after publication; otherwise, it becomes public domain. If a limited publication effectively becomes public, rights irrevocably vest in the public. The author controls the first publication, but after publication, the work enters the public domain unless protected by copyright

UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE V. MUNSINGWEAR

The exclusive right secured by Presidential Decree No. 49 to the petitioner precludes the appropriation of the copyrighted character by another as a trademark.

PHIL. EDUCATION CO. V. SOTTO

Where one periodical purchases, pays for and publishes an article with notice "that all rights thereto were reserved" another periodical has no legal right to again publish the article, without giving "the source of reproduction" or citing the original from which it was reproduced. This exception is confined and limited to "news items, editorial paragraphs, and articles in periodicals," and does not apply to any other provisions of the Copyright Law.

JOAQUIN VS DRILON ZOSA ET AL

The format or mechanics of a TV show are not copyrightable, as they are not included in the works protected under Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 49 (now §172 of the IP Code). Copyright exists only for works within statutory enumeration;

• Copyright infringement requires substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy. The claimant must present the original copyrighted work for comparison.

PEOPLE V. RAMOS

Under Article 13 of the Civil Code, a year has 365 days (with February 29 counted separately in leap years). ●Prescription is interrupted only by the filing of the complaint or information in court, not by preliminary investigation. ● Copyright infringement is not a continuing crime; each infringing act constitutes a separate offense.

LAKTAW V. PAGLINAWAN

Copying definitions and meanings from another dictionary, even with minor changes or additions, constitutes unauthorized reproduction. Dictionaries are not public property; they are protected works. Thus, they cannot be reproduced without the author’s permission.

20TH CENTURY FOX V. CA

To satisfy the requirement of probable cause in copyright piracy cases, it is mandatory to present the master tapes or original copyrighted films during the search warrant application. This allows the court to establish a direct linkage by comparing the original work with the allegedly pirated copies.

• The court cannot rely on mere allegations that copyrighted films exist; instead, the applicant must provide the actual films to prove that the seized items are unauthorized reproductions.

COLUMBIA PICTURES INC VS CA

A basic requirement for the validity of search warrants in cases involving alleged piracy of copyrighted motion pictures is the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

• The linkage between the copyrighted films and the allegedly pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause.

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION V. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS JAPAN CO., LTD.

A copyright owner who grants a license to distribute its broadcast content retains control over the scope, manner, and limits of use of the copyrighted work. Any insertion, alteration, or modification of the licensed broadcast content without clear authorization may constitute infringement or contractual breach, depending on the terms of the license. However, where the copyright owner has expressly or impliedly authorized the use, no infringement arises.

Elements of Copyright Infringement (Filscap v. Anrey)

Copyright holders may claim infringement upon the concurrence of these elements:

1. They must show ownership of a valid copyright.

2. They must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one economic right granted to the copyright holders under Section 177 of the IPC.

3. The act complained of must not fall under any of the limitations on copyright under Section 184 of the IPC or amounts to fair use of a copyrighted work.

Doctrine of Multiple Performances: Filscap v. Anrey

A radio or television transmission or broadcast can create multiple performances at once.

Fair Use Doctrine (Filscap v. Anrey) - In determining whether the use of a copyrighted work amounts to fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes

2. The nature of the copyrighted work

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Vargas FM Yaptico and Co

Patentability requires true invention—novelty beyond mere mechanical skill. An invention must not have been known, used, or sold before the application. Public use destroys novelty, and even a single instance of use more than two years prior invalidates the patent

E.I. DUPONT NEMOURS AND CO. VS EMMA C. FRANCISCO (AS DG OF IPOPHIL) AND EPIFANIO M. EVASCO (AS DIR. OF PATENTS) & THERAPHARMA, INC.

A patent application that is abandoned for failure to prosecute may only be revived within the strict reglementary period (4 months); failure to comply results in forfeiture, and negligence of counsel binds the applicant. A mere patent application (even with priority rights) does not confer patent rights or remove the invention from the public domain.

Creser Precision System Inc v. CA & Floro

Only the patentee/successors in interest, assignees or grantees may file an action for infringement

Boothe v. Director of Patents

An application for patent must be complete before it can be accepted and accorded a filing date; substantive defects in the specification are not minor informalities. Priority rights under the Patent Law are strictly construed and cannot be preserved by filing an incomplete application later amended beyond the reglementary periods.

Smith Kline Beckman Corp v. CA

An application for patent must be complete before it can be accepted and accorded a filing date; substantive defects in the specification are not minor informalities. Priority rights under the Patent Law are strictly construed and cannot be preserved by filing an incomplete application later amended beyond the reglementary periods.

Compusory licensing - NAPPED

Not being worked though capaple without sufficient justification

Anti-competitive

Public noncommercial use without satisfactory reason

Public interest

Emergency/extreme urgency

Demand for patented drugs and medicines not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms as determined by the secretary of Health

prohibited clauses - PROF

Prohibit the use of competitive tech

Restrict the volume/structure of production

Obligation to acquire from a special source

Fixing sale/resale price, or full/partial purchase option

prohibited clauses - ; TrPR

Transfer free improvements/inventions to licensor

Payment of royalties for not used;

• prohibit export

• Payments after expiry/termination

Restrict research

prohibited clauses -PRONE

Prevent adaptation

Restrict use after expiry (except tech transfer agreement)

Other clauses with equivalent effects

Not contest the validity of any of the patents of the supplier

Exempt the licensor for liability for nonfulfillment of responsibilities