b.
since it already expired on July 16, 2004, it has no more monopoly
CASE: Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No.
167715, 17 November 2010
1. Pfizer was issued a patent on July 16, 1987 w/c was valid until July 16,
2004.
2. Patent: covers Ampicillin (anti-biotic) under the brand name Unasyn
a. Sole distributer: Zuelling Pharma
3. 2003: Received complaints that Phil. Pharmawealth submitted bids for
supply of the Ampicillin to several hospital w/out the consent of Pfizer
4. They sent a notice to desist from accepting bids for the supply of the said
product but refused to comply therewith.
5. Pfizer prayed for issuance of a TRO + PI to prevent Pharmawealth from
selling the said product to any entity in the PH before the BLA-IP
6. July 15, 2003: BLA-IPO issued a prelim. injunction (effective: 90 days)
a. before the expiration, Pfizer filed a motion to extend the
effectivity of the said PI
b. BUT it was denied by the BLA-IPO on Oct. 15, 2003
c. Pfizer filed MR but denied by BLA-IPO on Jan. 23, 2004
7. Pfizer filed SCA Certiorari w/ CA
a. assailing those 2 resolutions of the BLA-IPO
b. also prayed for issuance of PI for reinstatement + extension of the
writ of PI issued by the BLA-IPO
8. While case was pending before the CA, Pfizer filed w/ RTC Makati for
infringement + unfair competition against Pharmawealth
a. also prayed for issuance of TRO + PI
b. RTC (Aug. 24, 2004): issued order directing the issuance of TRO
upon Pfizer’s filing of a bond
9. Nov. 16, 2004: Pharmawealth filed MTD on the ground of forum shopping
(same purpose to restrain them from disturbing the product)
10. April 6, 2005: RTC issued a writ of PI prohibiting Pharmawealth from selling
the said products
11. Jan. 18, 2005: CA approved the bond posted by Pfizer
12. Feb. 7, 2005: Pharmawealth filed a MTD since the case is already MOOT +
ACADEMIC because the patent already lapsed.
a. TRO issued by CA is void because the patent right sought to be
protected was already extinguished due the lapse of the patent
license
13. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the resolution
by the CA.
14. Pharmawealth argued:
a. Pfizer’s exclusive right to monopolize the subject matter of the
patent exists only within the term of the patent.
+ no more basis for issuance the injunction against Pharmawealth
ISSUE: Can in injunctive relief be issued based on an action of patent infringement
when the patent allegedly infringed has already lapsed? NO.
HELD: In favor of Pharmawealth
Sec. 37 RA 165 (governing law during this case) provides that the patentee shall
have 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; . . . .
 Hence, the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use and sell a patented
product, article or process exists only during the term of the patent.
 IN THIS CASE, the patent of Pfizer & which was the basis of filing their
complaint w/ the BLA-IPO was issued on July 16, 1987.
o Pfizer admitted in their complaint such date of issuance and
admitted the validity of the patent was only until July 16, 2004.
o Sec. 21 RA 165: term of patent was 17 yrs for date of issuance
Note: Sec. 3 R58 of ROC (requirement for issuance of writ of PI)
a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
b. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of
during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
c. That a party, court, or agency or a person is doing, threatening, or attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.
Summary: 2 requisites
a. Existence of clear + unmistakable right that must be protected ; and
b. Urgent + paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage
 IN THIS CASE, when CA issued the Jan. 18 2005 resolution w/c approved
the bond filed by Pfizer, the latter no longer had a right that must be
protected. Hence, the issuance by the CA of a temporary restraining order
in favor of the respondents is not proper.