A.M. No. 06-12-720-RTC

Appellant: Co San Alias Co King Chong, who initiated the petition for cancellation.
Respondents:

Celedonio Agrava, serving as Director of the Office of Patents.
Jose Ong Lian Bio, the recipient of the two design patents for ornamental designs.

Two design patents were issued by the Director of the Office of Patents to Jose Ong Lian Bio.
The patents related to ornamental features (franjas ornamentales) applied on the borders of travel cases.
The patents were granted without any prior public or private notification.

The petitioner (Co San Alias Co King Chong) discovered the issuance of the patents approximately three months later.
He alleged that the granted design patents lacked novelty and originality, being mere copies of designs he had been using.
The argument was centered on the fact that the designs were not new or original but were derived from patterns in American manufacturer catalogs.

The petitioner formally approached the Director of Patents seeking the cancellation of the design patents, invoking the lack of novelty and originality.
At the motion of the patent holder (Jose Ong Lian Bio), the Director dismissed the petition for cancellation, contending that he lacked the authority to entertain such a request.
The petitioner, relying on the provisions of Republic Act No. 165 (as amended by Republic Acts No. 637 and No. 864) regarding cancellation procedures, appealed the Director’s resolution before the appropriate court.

The issuance of design patents is governed by Article 55 of Republic Act No. 165, which sets the standards for novelty and specifies the patent requirements for both design patents and utility models.
The applicable standard of novelty, drawn from Section 9 of the same Act as applied to inventions, is also used to assess ornamental designs.
Article 28 of the law provides for the grounds upon which any person may petition the Director to cancel a patent, including that the design is not new or properly inventoried.
The petitioner’s grounds were based on Section 28(a), contending that the design did not meet the criteria for novelty and originality.

Whether the Director of the Office of Patents had the legal authority to dismiss the cancellation petition filed by the petitioner.
Whether the dismissal (sobreseimiento) by the Director was proper given the statutory framework.

Whether the design in question should be found to lack novelty and originality as alleged by the petitioner.
Whether the design patents granted for the ornamental features are mere copies of designs already in public or private use.

The adequacy of notice and public disclosure prior to the grant of the patents.
The implications of the absence of public notification on the validity of the patent issuance process.