Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The Philippines: ODG assesses inventive step in patent case

In the appealed case of Frederick Vital Erum v Integrated Formworks Builder, the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) issued its decision on October 19 2018, affirming the decision of the Office of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) cancelling Erum's letters patent no. 1-2006-00047 (047) entitled "A Table Form Support System for Concrete Forming," on the ground that the claimed invention lacks inventive step and is therefore not patentable. Under Section 21 of the IP Code, for an invention to be given patent protection, it must be new, have an inventive step and be industrially applicable.

The inventor and patentee Erum is a member of the Filipino Inventors Society whose subject patent was granted on October 15 2012. Integrated Formworks Builder is a sole proprietorship engaged in the formwork business and the use of a table form support system for the construction industry. On November 27 2013, Integrated filed a petition to cancel patent 047 on the grounds that the invention is not new or patentable, and that the patent does not disclose the invention sufficiently to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. In his decision, the BLA director ruled that the essential elements of the invention are found in the prior arts US Patent No. 4,787,183 (Johnston Patent), and US Patent No. 4,585,204 (Parker Patent) issued on November 29 1988 and April 29 1986 respectively, and on this basis cancelled patent 047. Dissatisfied with the BLA ruling, Erum appealed to the ODG.

On the issue of novelty, the ODG stated that Erum's patent application was filed on August 31 2006, hence any publication and information about the invention made available to the public anywhere in the world prior to the filing date could negate the novelty of the invention, and that only one item of the prior art may be used at a time. The ODG therefore had to examine whether the prior arts, Parker patent (1986) and the Johnston patent (1988), disclosed each and every element of the claims in Erum's patent 047. In this case, Integrated only maintained that Erum's invention is similar to the cited US patents, and was not able to prove that patent 047 was anticipated by them. The ODG ruled that patent 047 is novel.

On the issue of inventive step, the ODG stated that "as distinct from the assessment of novelty, the subject matter of the claim under examination is compared not with each publication or other disclosure separately, but with the combinations, thereof, insofar as each combination is obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art." Erum claimed the following improvements embodied in 047 over the Johnston and Parker patents: "(a) chords defined by double walled channels or double-walled channel chords; and (b) upright members having central web section with no flanged bolt slot channels." The ODG held that Integrated correctly argued that the alleged improvements in Erum's invention were not unexpected or are considered obvious to those skilled in the art, e.g. for improvement "a". It is naturally expected that an additional wall to the chords would result in the structure being stronger. The ODG further held that the cited US patents Johnston and Parker should be part of the reference materials of the 047 patent, and, had they been included, patent 047 would not have been issued.

Hechanova

Editha R Hechanova

Hechanova & Co., Inc.

Salustiana D. Ty Tower

104 Paseo de Roxas Avenue

Makati City 1229, Philippines

Tel: (63) 2 812-6561

Fax: (63) 2 888-4290

editharh@hechanova.com.ph

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP