Practice question
A properly construed combination claim requires A, B, and C. The accused device lacks C and no equivalent of C is established. The plaintiff relies only on a similar overall result. Is that sufficient for the stated claim?
- No; the missing required element cannot be ignored merely because the overall result resembles the invention.
- Yes, all results are patented without claim limits.
- Yes, one matching feature always suffices.
- Yes, the plaintiff's preference overrides the claim.
- Yes, every device in the industry infringes.
Legal references
- RA8293, IP Code, Sections28–30,71–76: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8293_1997.html
- RA9502 amendments to IP Code Sections72 and74: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2008/ra_9502_2008.html
- Phillips Seafood v. Tuna Processors, GR214148, February6 2023, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/feb2023/gr_214148_2023.html
- Tuna Processors v. Frescomar/Hawaii International Seafood, GR226445/226631, February27 2024, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/feb2024/gr_226445_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.