8/10/2019 Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.
1/2
PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC. v. PFIZER, INC. and PFIZER (PHIL.)
INC.G.R. No. 167715, Nov. 17, 2010
Pfizer (Phil.), Inc. (Pfizer) filed a patent infringement case
against Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. (Pharmawealth). It owned a patent
over the antibiotic Sulbactam Ampicillin, produced and distributed
under the name UNASYN. In 2003, Pfizer discovered that Pharmawealth
was supplying the antibiotic to hospitals without the former's
consent.
Pfizer prayed for permanent injunction, damages and the
forfeiture and impoundingand temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction [] from importing, distributing, selling or
offering the subject product for sale to any entity in the
Philippines.
In 2003, BLA-IPO issued a preliminary injunction which was
effective for ninetydays. Pfizer's motion for extension was denied.
Pfizer assailed BLA-IPO's resolutionbefore the CA on special review
for certiorari.
While case pending before CA, Pfizer filed patent infringement
case before RTC.RTC granted TRO conditional on payment of a bond.
It also issued writ of preliminary injunction against
Pharmawealth's sale and distribution of Sulbactam Ampicillin.
In 2005, CA approved bond and issued TRO.
Pharmawealth filed motion to dismiss, claiming that (1) Pfizer's
patent expired onJuly 16, 2004; (2) CA has no jurisdiction to
review BLA-IPO resolution.
SCQ: Can an injunctive relief be issued based on an action of
patent infringementwhen the patent allegedly infringed has already
lapsed?
A: No. 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 (Rep. Act No. 165, sec. 37). There are two requisites
for the grant of preliminary injunction: (1) the existence of a
clear and unmistakable right that must be protected; and (2) an
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
damage (Rul
es of Court, Rule 58, sec. 3). Pfizer did not possess the first
element becauseits patent had expired at the time CA issued
TRO.
Q: What tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the
Director of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office?
A: CA, in this PARTICULAR instance involving an interlocutory
order. Though theDirector-General IPO exercises exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over DECISIONS of BLA-IPO, this case involves a motion
for extension. The Intellectual PropertyCode is silent with regard
to remedies for interlocutory orders, thus the Rulesof Court apply
to fill in the gaps. Furthermore, motion for extension no
longerrequires specialised, administrative knowledge of BLA-IPO but
a legal question properly recognizable by the CA.
RA 8293 is silent with respect to any remedy available to
litigants who intend toquestion an interlocutory order issued by
the BLA-IPO. Moreover, Section 1(c),Rule 14 of the Rules and
Regulations on Administrative Complaints for Violationof Laws
Involving Intellectual Property Rights simply provides that
interlocutory orders shall not be appealable. The said Rules and
Regulations do not prescribe a procedure within the administrative
machinery to be followed in assailing orders issued by the BLA-IPO
pending final resolution of a case filed with them. Hence, in the
absence of such a remedy, the provisions of the Rules of Court
shall apply in a suppletory manner, as provided under Section 3,
Rule 1 of the same
