Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lina de la Cruz
ChE Laws, Ethics, Codes and Standards CH51FC1
Facts:
Pfizer is the registered owner of a patent pertaining to Sulbactam
Ampicillin. It is marketed under the brand name Unasyn. Sometime in
January and February 2003, Pfizer discovered that Pharmawealth
submitted bids for the supply of Sulbactam Ampicillin to several
hospitals without the Pfizers consent. Pfizer then demanded that the
hospitals cease and desist from accepting such bids. Pfizer also
demanded that Pharmawealth immediately withdraw its bids to supply
Sulbactam Ampicillin. Pharmawealth and the hospitals ignored the
demands.
While the case was pending in the CA, Pfizer filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Makati (RTC) a complaint for infringement and unfair
competition, with a prayer for injunction. The RTC issued a temporary
restraining order, and then a preliminary injunction.
Issues:
a) Can an injunctive relief be issued based on an action of patent
infringement when the patent allegedly infringed has already lapsed?
b) What tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the
Director of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office?
c) Is there forum shopping when a party files two actions with two
seemingly different causes of action and yet pray for the same relief?
Alwyn Wren C. Cuesta Engr. Lina de la Cruz
ChE Laws, Ethics, Codes and Standards CH51FC1
Held:
a) No. The provision of R.A. 165, from which the Pfizers patent was
based, clearly states that "[the] patentee shall have the exclusive
right to make, use and sell the patented machine, article or product,
and to use the patented process for the purpose of industry or
commerce, throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term of
the patent; and such making, using, or selling by any person without
the authorization of the patentee constitutes infringement of the
patent."
Clearly, the patentees exclusive rights exist only during the term of
the patent. Since the patent was registered on 16 July 1987, it
expired, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. 165, after 17
years, or 16 July 2004. Thus, after 16 July 2004, Pfizer no longer
possessed the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the products
covered by their patent. The CA was wrong in issuing a temporary
restraining order after the cut-off date.
The parties are clearly identical. In both the complaints in the BLA-
IPO and RTC, the rights allegedly violated and the acts allegedly
violative of such rights are identical, regardless of whether the
patents on which the complaints were based are different. In both
cases, the ultimate objective of Pfizer was to ask for damages and to
permanently prevent Pharmawealth from selling the contested products.
Relevantly, the Supreme Court has decided that the filing of two
actions with the same objective, as in this instance, constitutes
forum shopping.
Source: http://www.iplaw.ph/ip-views/Case-Digest-Pharmawealth-vs-
Pfizer-Patent-Infringement.html
Alwyn Wren C. Cuesta Engr. Lina de la Cruz
ChE Laws, Ethics, Codes and Standards CH51FC1
Republic act no. 8749, otherwise known as the Philippine Clean Air
Act, is a comprehensive air quality management policy and program
which aims to achieve and maintain healthy air for all Filipinos.
Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990-
an act to control toxic substances and hazardous and nuclear wastes.