Phil pharmawealth v. Pfizer

7/17/2019 Phil pharmawealth v. Pfizer

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phil-pharmawealth-v-pfizer-568e3a308d79f 1/3

Case Digest: Pharmawealth vs. Pfizer (Patent Infringement)December 19, 2010

Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. & Pfizer (Phil.), Inc. G.R. No. 167715, 17

November 2010

by: Alpheus D. Macalalad

Facts: Pfizer is the registered !"er f a pate"t pertai"i"g t #ulbactam Ampicilli". $t is

mar%eted u"der the bra"d "ame &'"asy".( #metime i" )a"uary a"d February 200*,

Pfizer disc+ered that Pharma!ealth submitted bids fr the supply f #ulbactam

Ampicilli" t se+eral hspitals !ithut the Pfizers c"se"t. Pfizer the" dema"ded that

the hspitals cease a"d desist frm accepti"g such bids. Pfizer als dema"ded that

Pharma!ealth immediately !ithdra! its bids t supply #ulbactam Ampicilli".

Pharma!ealth a"d the hspitals ig"red the dema"ds.

Pfizer the" filed a cmplai"t fr pate"t i"fri"geme"t !ith a prayer fr perma"e"t

i"-u"cti" a"d frfeiture f the i"fri"gi"g prducts. A prelimi"ary i"-u"cti" effecti+e fr

90 days !as gra"ted by the $Ps /ureau f egal Affairs $P/A3. 'p" e4pirati", a

mti" fr e4te"si" filed by Pfizer !as de"ied. Pfizer filed a #pecial 5i+il Acti" fr

5ertirari i" the 5urt f Appeals 5A3 assaili"g the de"ial.

6hile the case !as pe"di"g i" the 5A, Pfizer filed !ith the 7egi"al 8rial 5urt f

Ma%ati 7853 a cmplai"t fr i"fri"geme"t a"d u"fair cmpetiti", !ith a prayer fri"-u"cti". 8he 785 issued a temprary restrai"i"g rder, a"d the" a prelimi"ary

i"-u"cti".

Pharma!ealth filed a mti" t dismiss the case i" the 5A, " the gru"d f frum

shppi"g. e+ertheless, the 5A issued a temprary restrai"i"g rder. Pharma!ealth

agai" filed a mti" t dismiss, allegi"g that the pate"t, the mai" basis f the case, had

already lapsed, thus ma%i"g the case mt, a"d that the 5A had " -urisdicti" t

re+ie! the rder f the $P/A because this !as gra"ted t the Directr e"eral. 8he

5A de"ied all the mti"s. Pharma!ealth filed a petiti" fr re+ie! " 5ertirari !ith the

#upreme 5urt.

$ssues:

a3 5a" a" i"-u"cti+e relief be issued based " a" acti" f pate"t i"fri"geme"t !he" the

pate"t allegedly i"fri"ged has already lapsed;

b3 6hat tribu"al has -urisdicti" t re+ie! the decisi"s f the Directr f egal Affairs f



the $"tellectual Prperty ffice;

c3 $s there frum shppi"g !he" a party files t! acti"s !ith t! seemi"gly differe"t

causes f acti" a"d yet pray fr the same relief;

<eld:

a3 . 8he pr+isi" f 7.A. 1=>, frm !hich the Pfizers pate"t !as based, clearly

states that ?@the pate"tee shall ha+e the e4clusi+e right t ma%e, use a"d sell the

pate"ted machi"e, article r prduct, a"d t use the pate"ted prcess fr the purpse f

i"dustry r cmmerce, thrughut the territry f the Philippi"es fr the term f the

pate"tB a"d such ma%i"g, usi"g, r selli"g by a"y pers" !ithut the authrizati" f the

pate"tee c"stitutes i"fri"geme"t f the pate"t.?

5learly, the pate"tees e4clusi+e rights e4ist "ly duri"g the term f the pate"t. #i"ce the

pate"t !as registered " 1= )uly 19C, it e4pired, i" accrda"ce !ith the pr+isi"s f7.A. 1=>, after 1 years, r 1= )uly 200E. 8hus, after 1= )uly 200E, Pfizer " l"ger

pssessed the e4clusi+e right t ma%e, use, a"d sell the prducts c+ered by their

pate"t. 8he 5A !as !r"g i" issui"g a temprary restrai"i"g rder after the cutff date.

b3 Accrdi"g t $P 5de, the Directr e"eral f the $P e4ercises e4clusi+e -urisdicti"

+er decisi"s f the $P/A. 8he uesti" i" the 5A c"cer"s a" i"terlcutry rder,

a"d "t a decisi". #i"ce the $P 5de a"d the 7ules a"d 7egulati"s are bereft f a"y

remedy regardi"g i"terlcutry rders f the $P/A, the "ly remedy a+ailable t

Pfizer is t apply the 7ules a"d 7egulati"s suppletrily. '"der the 7ules, a petiti" fr

certirari t the 5A is the prper remedy. 8his is c"siste"t !ith the 7ules f 5urt.8hus, the 5A had -urisdicti".

c3 Ges. Frum shppi"g is defi"ed as the act f a party agai"st !hm a" ad+erse

-udgme"t has bee" re"dered i" "e frum, f see%i"g a"ther a"d pssibly fa+rable3

pi"i" i" a"ther frum ther tha" by appeal r the special ci+il acti" f certirari3, r

the i"stituti" f t! 23 r mre acti"s r prceedi"gs gru"ded " the same cause

" the suppsiti" that "e r the ther curt !uld ma%e a fa+rable dispsiti".

8he eleme"ts f frum shppi"g are: a3 ide"tity f parties, r at least such parties that

represe"t the same i"terests i" bth acti"sB b3 ide"tity f rights asserted a"d reliefs

prayed fr, the reliefs bei"g fu"ded " the same factsB c3 ide"tity f the t! precedi"g

particulars, such that a"y -udgme"t re"dered i" the ther acti" !ill, regardless f !hich

party is successful, amu"t t res -udicata i" the acti" u"der c"siderati". 8his

i"sta"ce meets these eleme"ts.

8he parties are clearly ide"tical. $" bth the cmplai"ts i" the /A$P a"d 785, the



rights allegedly +ilated a"d the acts allegedly +ilati+e f such rights are ide"tical,

regardless f !hether the pate"ts " !hich the cmplai"ts !ere based are differe"t. $"

bth cases, the ultimate b-ecti+e f Pfizer !as t as% fr damages a"d t perma"e"tly

pre+e"t Pharma!ealth frm selli"g the c"tested prducts. 7ele+a"tly, the #upreme

5urt has decided that the fili"g f t! acti"s !ith the same b-ecti+e, as i" this

i"sta"ce, c"stitutes frum shppi"g.

!i"g t the substa"tial ide"tity f parties, reliefs a"d issues i" the $P a"d 785 cases,

a decisi" i" "e case !ill "ecessarily amu"t t res -udicata i" the ther acti".

Documents

Phil pharmawealth v. Pfizer