ACCRALAW recently brought to a successful conclusion a long-running patent dispute of its client, Phillips Seafood Philippines Corporation (“Phillips Seafood”). The Supreme Court (“SC”) decided that Phillips Seafood is not liable for patent infringement.
In 2003, the patent holder of a process for the curing of tuna meat by extra-low temperature smoking filed an action for patent infringement against Phillips Seafood before the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (“IPOPHL”). After trial, the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the IPOPHL exonerated Phillips Seafood. On appeal, the IPOPHL Director General affirmed said decision. While the Court of Appeals (“CA”) initially sustained the rulings in favor of the Phillips Seafood, on motion for reconsideration, the CA ruled that Phillips Seafood committed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Thus, Phillips Seafood appealed to the SC.
In its decision, the SC expounded on several essential doctrines in patent law, including on matters on claim interpretation, burden of proof, literal infringement, and the doctrine of equivalents. For the first time, the SC applied a third test in determining equivalence, namely the all elements test. The SC likewise applied the customary insubstantial difference test and the triple identity test (or the functions-means-and-result test).
ACCRALAW Senior Partner Alex Ferdinand S. Fider, Partner Richmond K. Lee, and retired Of Counsel Rogelio A. Vinluan represented Phillips Seafood. Among the expert witnesses presented by Phillips Seafood during trial was Donald W. Banner, former Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The SC decision became final and executory on 22 March 2024. A copy of the decision may be downloaded here.