A PAYMENT processing firm has won its infringement and unfair competition suit against a copyright violator in a ruling handed down by the Paranaque City Regional Trial Court.
In a decision promulgated last September 26, Paranaque RTC Branch 258 Presiding Judge Noemi Balitaan sided with Manila Express Payments System (MEPS) and directed Electronic Transfer and Advance Processing Inc. (ETAP) and Persevando Hernandez to pay more than P3 million in exemplary damages and another P200,000 as attorney’s fees, as well as the cost of suit.
In a 34-page decision, Balitaan ruled that MEPS was able to prove its case with a preponderance of evidence against ETAP.
The firm, which is engaged in the franchising, distribution, trading and sale of duly-registered and patented IT products such as but not limited to Touch Pay, alleged that the business process of ETAP through its automated machine Pay&Go infringed their registration.
Touch Pay is a technology for remitting payment through an automated payment machine and was licensed to MEPS by its registered owner as shown in the certificate of registration issued by the Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology Transfer on Oct. 24, 2014.
The company said the National Bureau of Investigation-Intellectual Property Division even raided and seized several automated machines under their label and supposedly powered by ETAP.
Based on the prosecution’s evidence and testimony of witnesses, Balitaan held that the E-TAP machine is basically the same as that of MEPs’.
“The physical or visual design of both machines might have marked differences. However, as pointed out by another defendant’s witness, this visual comparison is not an issue in this case,” the court said, dismissing the defendant’s arguments that MEP’s Touch Pay is not patentable.
‘What matters is the fact that ETAP appears to have combined into one the three components: the process or the system design which in its material points are substantially the same as that if plaintiff, the use of computer program or the program codes which makes the system or process works, and the automated payment machine which serves as the interface between the merchants and the end users or customers,” the court added.
The defendants told the court that even if the model and process are patentable, they still did not commit patent infringement, as their process flow is very different from that of MEPS.
The defendants likewise claimed their process flow system requires internet access for purposes of communication with the merchants compared to MEPS’ which does not require internet access.
The court, however, said there is a preponderance of evidence against the defendants.
“In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence which means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. In the instant case, the plaintiff was able to prove this burden,” the court said.
But the court said it could not sustain MEPS ‘claim for actual damages of P20 million representing loss of profits in the absence of proof of the damages incurred with reasonable certainty.
“Notwithstanding, however, the plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in accordance with Article 2229 of the Civil Code. Likewise, the plaintiff having been compelled to incur expenses to protect its interests, is entitled to attorney’s fees and cost of suit,” it added.
