Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gsell v. Yap-Jue.
Gsell v. Yap-Jue.
Yap-Jue
GR L-4720
January 19, 1909
Facts:
- This principal case was an action to enjoin infringement of a patented
process for the manufacture of curved handles for canes, parasols and
umbrellas wherein plaintiff was able to establish his title to a valid patent.
The Court also ordered defendant to stop from manufacturing canes and
umbrellas with a curved handle by means of a lamp fed with mineral oil which
process was protected by the patent in favor of Henry GSell.
- *NOTE- The patent is for the product “cane handles for walking sticks and
umbrellas, curved by means of a small lamp or blowpipe”
- Thereafter, defendant still continued to produce curved cane with a process
identical with the process used by plaintiff GSell except that defendant shall
use lamp fed with alcohol as appears from a stipulation entered into
between plaintiff and defendant.
- Contempt proceedings were commenced against defendant for engaging in
unlawful manufacture of umbrella handles by identical process with plaintiff.
- The trial court found defendant not guilty due to the fact that the process
used by defendant was by using an alcohol burning lamp which was
stipulated by the parties.
- Issue presented by plaintiff: WON the use of a patented process a well-known
mechanical equivalent”
- (1) That the use of the lamp fed with petroluem was an unessential part of
the patented process
- (2) That alcohol is an equivalent and proper substitute
- Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to use the patented process, save only for
the substitutions of a lamp fed by alcohol for a lamp fed by petroleum oil and
new proceedings were commenced with the same question mentioned above.
Issue: WON the use of a patented process by a third person, without license or
authority, constitutes as an infringement when the alleged infringer has
substituted some unessential part of the patented process a well known
mechanical equivalent (YES)