Intellectual Property Code with the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases

Section 1

a) The burden of proof to substantiate a charge for patent infringement rests on the party alleging the same, subject, however, to sub-Section (b) below, and other applicable laws. b) If the subject matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, any identical product is presumed to have been obtained through the use of the patented process if: (i) the product is new; or (ii) there is substantial likelihood that the identical product was made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable, despite reasonable efforts, to determine the process actually used. In such cases, the court shall then order the defendant or alleged infringer to prove that the process to obtain the identical product is different from the patented process, subject to the court's adoption of measures to protect, as far as practicable, said defendant or alleged infringer's manufacturing and business secrets.

Section 2

In all cases, a letters patent issued by the IPO-Bureau of Patents, or successor-agencies, is prima facie evidence of its existence and validity during the term specified therein against all persons, unless the same has already been cancelled or voided by a final and executory judgment or order. Moreover, letters patents issued by the IPO-Bureau of Patents, or successor-agencies, are presumed to have been validly issued by said government agency in accordance with applicable laws, unless otherwise contradicted or overcome by other admissible evidence showing that the same was irregularly issued.

Section 3

For purposes of awarding damages in patent infringement cases, it is presumed that the defendant or alleged infringer knew of the existence of a patent over a protected invention or process, if: (a) on the patented invention or product manufactured using the patented process; (b) on the container or package in which said article is supplied to the public; or (c) on the advertising material relating to the patented product or process, are placed the words "Philippine Patent" with the number of the patent.

Section 4

In patent infringement cases, the court, motu proprio or upon motion by a party, may appoint one (1) expert, or order the creation of a committee of three (3) experts to provide advice on the technical aspects of the patent in dispute, including construction of claims, if necessary. If the court orders the creation of a committee of three (3) experts, each party shall, within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of such order, nominate an expert, who shall then both be appointed by the court. Thereafter, the court shall appoint the third expert from a list submitted by the experts of each side. All fees and expenses relating to the appointment of an expert or committee of experts shall be initially equally shouldered by the parties but may later on be adjudicated by the court in favor of the prevailing party. To assist in the trial involving highly-technical evidence or matters, the court may also request the IPO to provide equipment, technical facilities, and personnel.

Section 5

The above rules shall likewise be applicable to infringement cases involving utility models and industrial designs, with corresponding registrability report.