LIP SAMPLEX

1. Non patentable and non copyrightable

Rule 202 of the Revised IRR for Patents, Utility Models and Industrial Designs provides that the following
are non patentable inventions:

(a) Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical method;

(b) Schemes, rules and methods of performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and
programs for computers;
(c) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods
practiced on the human or animal body. This provision shall not apply to products and compositions
for use in any of these methods;
(d) Plant varieties or animal breeds or essentially biological process for the production of plants or
animals. This provision shall not apply to microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological
processes;
(e) Aesthetic creations; and
(f) Anything which is contrary to public order or morality. (Sec. 22, IP CODE)

Section 175 and 176 of the IPC enumerates the unprotected subject matter or non copyrightable works
such as:

PINDOG
a. Pleadings;
b. Idea, procedure, system method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even
if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work;
c. News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information;
d. Decisions of courts and tribunals as they may be freely used or quoted (original decisions and not the
SCRA published volumes;
e. Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof;
f. Any work of the Government of the Philippines unless prior approval was given to use such work for
profit.

2. Wireless chargers in cars

Answer: Wireless chargers in cars are creations which can be subjected to or protected through patents
provided an inventor or creator can properly ascertain his or her product’s novelty, inventive step and
industrial applicability. Given that different creators or companies may come up with their own and
different versions of a wireless charger, the doctrine of equivalents provides that introduction of minor
modifications or changes to a prior invention or product deny grant of a patent. Hence, it is necessary that
the patentable work bears the above-mentioned requisites in order that the same may acquire a patent.

With regard to registration for trademark, every company engaged in the production and sale of wireless
chargers may opt to registering their brand names in order to visibly distinguish their goods from that of
their competitors. On the other hand, copyright is only possible if it the same is an artistic or literary creation
or that of enumerated as original works under the law.

3. X dropped his camera while in the zoo. Monkey picked it up and took a picture. X published the photo.
PETA sues X, saying that it was monkey that has the right to such. Decide.

Answer: I would rule in favor of X. While it is true Section 178.1 of the IPC provides that copyright of original
literary and artistic works shall belong to the author of the work, it has been held in many jurisdictions and
amplified through jurisprudence that only works created by human can be copyrighted, which therefore
excludes works created by animals or machines without human intervention. Such case is of the same
nature and factual considerations to that of a British photographer who placed his camera and tripod
amongst the monkeys and one particular monkey took a selfie shot of himself, which was thereafter
published by the photographer and gained worldwide attention. A US court ruled that the monkey cannot
own copyright and reiterated that while the Congress and the President in their jurisdiction can extend
protection to animals through legislation, they did not intend the extend same protection provided for in the
Copyright Act to animals. Furthermore, as held in the case of Kho vs. CA, literary and artistic works are
protected from through copyrights from the moment of creation, which is only possible if created in the
literary and artistic domain of a human being.

4. Mocha had a patent over something. It appears that a year before she was granted such, someone else
had been using it. Mocha filed for injunction. Rule.

Answer: I will deny Mocha’s application for induction. While it is true that Mocha is entitled to the patent as
Section 28 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that the right to a patent belongs to the inventor, his
heirs, or assigns and afforded the rights to restrain, prohibit and prevent the unauthorised making, using or
sale of her product, there is a limitation as to use by prior user. Section 73 of the IPC provides that a person
other than the applicant, who started using in good faith the invention in the Philippines, or undertaken
serious preparations to use the same before the filing date of application, such person shall have the right
to continue the use thereof but his right may only be transferred or assigned further with his enterprise or
business.

In other words, absent bad faith, Mocha may not prohibit such person from using the product itself.

5. Secret lovers using messaging app. The controller of the app copied their messages and published them.
May she be held liable for copyright infringement? Do lovers have economic and moral rights? If yes, how
can they enforce them?

Answer: Yes. The messages which the secret lovers sent each other fall under the category of letters as
provided in Section 172.1.d which provides that literary and artistic works are original intellectual creations
in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular
among others, letters. Infringement of such consist in the doing by any person, without the consent of the
owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the
copyright.

Reproduction and first public distribution of the work are economic rights of the authors of the work. Such
cannot be done by the person not the author of the work. In this case, the controller is not the owner of the
messages. She merely copied it without the consent of the authors, published the same, which is in violation
of their economic rights.

Sec. 177 of the IPC provides copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out,
authorize or prevent the following acts:

a. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;

b. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment, arrangement or other transformation of the work;
c. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms of transfer
of ownership;
d. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound
recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a musical work in graphic
form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which is the subject of the rental;
e. Public display of the original or a copy of the work;
f. Public performance of the work; and
g. Other communication to the public of the work

Sec. 193 of the IPC on the other hand provides that the author of a work shall, independently of the
economic rights in Section 177 or the grant of an assignment or license with respect to such right, have the
right:
a. To require that the authorship of the works be attributed to him, in particular, the right that his name, as
far as practicable, be indicated in a prominent way on the copies, and in connection with the public use
of his work;
b. To make any alterations of his work prior to, or to withhold it from publication;
c. To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to,
his work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation; and
d. To restrain the use of his name with respect to any work not of his own creation or in a distorted version
of his work.