Facts:

This case involves Abbot Laboratories, a Philippine corporation, as the petitioner, and the Honorable Celedonio Agrava, Director of Patents, as the respondent. The decision was rendered on May 21, 1952. The controversy centers on Abbot Laboratories' appeal against the Director of Patents' disallowance of Patent Application Serial No. 77, which pertains to a medical preparation known as “Tridione.” The patent application was initially filed in June 1948 by Abbot Laboratories of Illinois, USA, which included claims of priority rights based on three earlier applications filed in the United States by inventor Marvin A. Spielman. These applications were filed on July 18, 1941, November 26, 1945, and October 11, 1947.

The application for patent sought priority rights in accordance with Section 76 of the Philippine Patent Law (Rep. Act No. 165). However, the Director of Patents denied this request on the grounds that the application was filed after the cutoff date of February

...

Facts:

Parties and Patent Application

• Petitioner: Abbot Laboratories, a Philippine corporation with ties to Illinois, U.S.A.
• Respondent: Hon. Celedonio Agrava, Director of Patents.
• Patent subject matter: An invention related to a medical preparation known as "Tridione."
• Application specifics:
• Patent Application Serial No. 77 was filed in June 1948.
• The invention was claimed to be identical to that in three earlier United States Patent Office applications filed by inventor Marvin A. Spielman:
• Application Serial No. 403,073, filed July 18, 1941.

ii. Application Serial No. 630,994, filed November 26, 1945. iii. Application Serial No. 779,424, filed October 11, 1947 (with the latter two modifying the initial submission).

Statutory Basis and Priority Rights

• Legal framework: The application is reviewed under Chapter XIII of Republic Act No. 165 (the Philippine Patent Law).
• Priority rights request:
• Abbot Laboratories specifically requested, pursuant to Section 76 of the Patent Law, that priority rights be granted on the basis of the earlier U.S. applications.
• Section 76 provided an extension of filing priority rights for inventions if reciprocal privileges were extended by the applicant’s country.
• Statutory language of Section 76:
• It extends priority rights until July 1, 1948, for subjects of countries granting substantially reciprocal privileges.

Denial of Priority and Procedural Backdrop

• The Director of Patents denied priority rights on the application on the ground that the filing was out of time, arguing that the true deadline was February 29, 1948 rather than the July 1, 1948 specified in the statute.
• The divergence originated from:
• An asserted "executive agreement" based on diplomatic correspondence.
• A note from the U.S. Secretary of State (dated February 12, 1948) indicating that under the Boykin Act, priority rights for Filipinos in the U.S. were subject to a February 29, 1948 cut-off.
• A subsequent reply from the Philippine Ambassador (dated August 23, 1948) conveying that the Philippine Patent Office would extend priority rights to American applicants only if their applications were received on or before February 29, 1948.

Contentions of the Parties

• Petitioner’s Argument:
• Abbot Laboratories contended that the statutory deadline as provided by Section 76 (i.e., July 1, 1948) should prevail.
• The petitioner argued that the Director of Patents had no authority to alter or shorten the legislated period through an executive agreement.
• Respondent’s Argument:
• The Director of Patents maintained that the reciprocal nature of priority rights—based on the corresponding privileges available to Filipinos in the United States—necessitated the use of the February 29, 1948 deadline.
• The respondent supported this interpretation by citing the diplomatic notes as evidence that under U.S. law, the benefits of the Boykin Act applied only if claims were made before February 29, 1948, thus affecting the reciprocal privileges.

Issue:

Main Issue

• Whether the Director of Patents erred in applying an effective deadline of February 29, 1948, for claiming priority rights in the Philippine Patent Law instead of the legislated date of July 1, 1948.
• Whether the diplomatic notes exchanged between the U.S. Secretary of State and the Philippine Ambassador constituted an illegal or unauthorized alteration of the statutory deadline set by Section 76.

Subordinate Issue

• Whether the invention was unpatentable due to its alleged prior publication in the August 1944 issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
• The necessity of addressing the prior publication issue was minimized by the court’s determination regarding the non-existence of the claimed priority rights.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)