Smith Lab

8/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 9

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs. Court of
Appeals
*
G.R. No. 121267. October 23, 2001.
SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD.,

plaintiffappellee, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DANLEX
RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., defendant-appellant.
Patent Law; Intellectual Property; The grant of the compulsory

license satisfies the requirements of Section 34 of the Patent Law.—
The grant of the compulsory license satisfies the requirements of the
foregoing provision. More than ten years have passed since the
patent for Cimetidine was issued to petitioner and its predecessors-
in-interest, and the compulsory license applied for by private
respondent is for the use, manufacture and sale of a medicinal
product. Furthermore, both the appellate court and the BPTTT
found that private respondent had the capability to work
Cimetidine or to make use thereof in the manufacture of a useful
product.
Same; Same; There is no basis for the allegation that the grant
of a compulsory license to private respondent results in the
deprivation of peti-tioner’s property without just compensation.—
There is likewise no basis for the allegation that the grant of a
compulsory license to private respondent results in the deprivation
of petitioner’s property without just compensation. It must be
pointed out that as owner of Letters Patent No. 12207, petitioner
had already enjoyed exclusive rights to manufacture, use and sell
Cimetidine for at least two years from its grant in November, 1978,
Even if other entities like private respondent are subsequently
allowed to manufacture, use and sell the patented invention by
virtue of a compulsory license, petitioner as owner of the patent
would still receive remuneration for the use of such product in the
form of royalties.
Same; Same; Identical royalty rates have been prescribed by the
Director of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Transfer (BPTTT) in numerous cases; Factual findings of
administrative bodies, which are considered as experts in their
respective fields, are accorded not only respect but even finality if
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001650003fed65221c7cb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
the same are supported by substantial evidence.—The Court agrees

with the appellate court’s ruling that the rate of royalty payments
fixed by the Director of the BPTTT is reasonable. The appellate
court, citing Price vs. United Laboratories, ruled as such,
considering that the compulsory license awarded to private
respondent consists only of the bare right to use the patented
invention in the manufacture of
________________
* FIRST DIV ISION.
10
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals
another product, without any technical assistance from the licensor.

Furthermore, this Court had earlier noted in the Price case that
identical royalty rates have been prescribed by the Director of the
BPTTT in numerous patent cases. There was thus no error on the
part of the Court of Appeals in affirming the royalty rate fixed by
the Director of the BPTTT, since it was not shown that the latter
erred or abused his discretion in prescribing said rate. The rule is
that factual findings of administrative bodies, which are considered
as experts in their respective fields, are accorded not only respect
but even finality if the same are supported by substantial evidence.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court

of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Sapalo & Velez Law Office for petitioner.
Sioson, Sandiego & Associates for private respondent.
KAPUNAN, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision

dated January1 27, 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 33770 which affirmed the decision of the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT)
granting a compulsory license to private respondent Danlex
Research Laboratories for the use of the pharmaceutical
product Cimetidine. Likewise assailed is the July 25, 1995
Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying the motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner Smith Kline and French

Laboratories, Ltd.
Petitioner is the assignee of Letters Patent No. 12207
covering the pharmaceutical product Cimetidine, which
relates to derivatives of heterocyclicthio or lower alkoxy or
amino lower alkyl thiourea, ureas or guanadines. Said
patent was issued by the BPTTT
________________
1 Smith Kline and French Laboratories, Ltd., Petitioner, vs. Hon.

Director of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
and Danlex Research Laboratories, Inc., respondents.
11
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 11

Appeals
to Graham John Durant, John2 Collin Emmett and Robin

Genellin on November 29, 1978.
On August 21,1989, private respondent filed with the
BPTTT a petition for compulsory license to manufacture
and produce its own brand of medicines using Cimetidine.
Private respondent
3
invoked Section 34 (1) (e) of Republic
Act No. 165, (the Patent Law) the law then governing
patents, which states that an application for the grant of a
compulsory license under a particular patent may be filed
with the BPTTT at any time after the lapse of two (2) years
from the date of grant of such patent, if the patented
invention or article relates to food or medicine, or
manufactured substances which can be used as food or4
medicine, or is necessary for public health or public safety.
The petition for compulsory license stated that Cimetidine is
useful as an antihistamine and in the treatment of ulcers,
and that private respondent is capable of using 5the patented
product in the manufacture of a useful product.
Petitioner opposed the petition for compulsory license,
arguing that the private respondent had no cause of action
and failed to allege how it intended to work the patented
product. Petitioner further stated that its manufacture, use
and sales of Cimetidine satisfied the needs of the Philippine
market, hence, there was no need to grant a compulsory
license to private respondent to manufacture, use and sell
the same. Finally, petitioner also claimed that the grant of a
compulsory license to private respondent would not promote
public safety and6

that the latter was only motivated by
pecuniary gain.
After both parties were heard, the BPTTT rendered a
decision directing the issuance of a compulsory license to
private respondent to use, manufacture and sell in the
Philippines its own brand
________________
2 See Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 27, 1995, Rollo,
pp. 32–33.
3 The Patent Law (1947), as amended. Chapter VIII thereof on
Licensing was amended by Presidential Decree No. 1263 in 1977, by
including two types of licensing: voluntary licensing and compulsory
licensing.
4 Section 34 (1) (e), R.A. No. 165, as amended, infra.
5 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 33.
6 Ibid.
12

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. us. Court of
Appeals
of pharmaceutical products containing Cimetidine and

ordered the payment by private respondent to petitioner of
royalties 7at the rate of 2.5% of net sales in Philippine
currency.
Petitioner thereafter filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for review of the decision of the BPTTT, raising the
following arguments: (1) the BPTTT’s decision is violative of
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property; (2) said decision is an invalid exercise of police
power; (3) the rate of royalties payable to petitioner as fixed
by the BPTTT was rendered without factual basis and
amounts to an expropriation of private property without just
compensation; and (4) the petition for compulsory license
should have been dismissed by the BPTTT for failure 8
to
prove the jurisdictional requirement of publication.
On January 27, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated
its Decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of the

Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer is hereby
AFFIRMED, with costs
9
against the Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
In affirming the decision of the BPTTT, the appellate court

held that the grant of a compulsory license to private
respondent for the manufacture and use of Cimetidine is in
accord with the Patent Law since the patented product is
medicinal in nature, and therefore10 necessary for the
promotion of public health and safety. It explained further
that the provisions of the Patent Law permitting the grant
of a compulsory license are intended not only to give a
chance to others to supply the public with the quantity of
the patented article but especially
11
to prevent the building
up of patent monopolies. Neither did the appellate court
find the royalty rate of 2.5% of net sales fixed by the BPTTT
unreasonable, considering
______________
7 Id., at 34.
8 Id., at 34–35.
9 Id., at 41.
10 Id., at 36.
11 Id., at 37.
13
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 13

Appeals
that what was granted under the compulsory license is only

the right to manufacture Cimetidine, without any technical
assistance from petitioner, and royalty rates identical to
that fixed by the BPTTT have been prescribed for the grant 12
of compulsory license in a good number of patent cases.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that contrary to petitioner’s
claim, private respondent complied with the requirement of
publication under the
13
Patent Law and had submitted proof
of such compliance.
Not satisfied with the appellate court’s decision,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration thereof as well
as a motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order against private respondent’s sister company, Montreal
Pharmaceutical, Inc. to refrain from marketing a product
similar to Cimetidine, but both motions were denied 14
by the
Court of Appeals in its Resolution of July 25, 1995.
Petitioner thus filed the present petition on September
15, 1995, with the following assignment of errors:
I. The respondent Court erred in upholding the

validity of the decision of public respondent BPTTT
which is an arbitrary exercise of police power and is
violative of international law.
II. The respondent Court erred in holding that
compulsory licensing will not create a confusion that
the patented product is the brainchild of private
respondent Danlex and not of petitioner.
III. Assuming that the grant of compulsory license is in
order, the respondent Court still erred in holding
that the BPTTT decision fixing the royalty at 2.5%
of the net wholesale price in peso does not amount to
expropriation of private property without just
compensation.
IV. The respondent Court erred in finding that the
jurisdictional requirement of publication in a
newspaper of general circulation for three (3)
consecutive weeks has15
been complied with by private
respondent Danlex.
_______________
12 Id., at 39–40.
13 Id., at 40.
14 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Id., at 43.
15 Petition, Id., at 13.
14

Appeals
While petitioner concedes that the State in the exercise of

police power may regulate the manufacture and use of
medicines through the enactment and implementation of
pertinent laws, it states that such exercise is valid only if the
means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment
16
of the purpose and if not unduly
oppressive. According to petitioner, the grant of a
compulsory license to private respondent is an invalid
exercise of police power since it was not shown that there is
an overwhelming public necessity for such grant,
considering that petitioner is able to provide an adequate
supply of Cimetidine to satisfy the needs of the Philippine
market. Petitioner also claims that the grant of a
compulsory license to private respondent unjustly deprives
17
17
it of a reasonable return on its investment. It argues
further that the provisions of the Patent Law on compulsory
licensing contravene the Convention 18
of Paris for the
Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention),
which allegedly permits the granting of a compulsory
license over a patented product only to prevent abuses
which might result from19the exercise of the exclusive rights
conferred by the patent, or on the ground of failure to work
or insufficient working of the patented product, within four
years from the date of filing of the patent application or
three years 20from the date of grant of the patent, whichever
expires last. Petitioner opines that the inclu-
_______________
16 Id., at 15–16.
17 Id., at 17.
18 61 O.G. 8011.
19 Article 5, Section A (2), Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, infra.
20 Article 5, Section A, (4), Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property reads as follows:
(4) A compulsory license may not be applied for on the ground of failure to work
or insufficient working before the expiration of a period of four years from the
date of filing of the patent application or three years from the date of grant of
the patent, whichever period expires last; it shall be refused if the patentee
justifies his inaction by legitimate reasons. Such compulsory license shall be
nonexclusive and shall not be transferable, even in the form of the grant
15
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 15

Appeals
sion of grounds for the grant of a compulsory license in

Section 34 of the Patent Law other than those provided
under the Paris Convention constitutes a violation of the
Philippines’
21
obligation to adhere to the provisions of said
treaty.
It is also contended by petitioner that the grant of a
compulsory license to private respondent will allow the
latter to liberally manufacture and sell medicinal products
containing Cimetidine without even extending to petitioner
due recognition for pioneering the development and
worldwide acceptance of said invention, and22 will
unreasonably dilute petitioner’s right over the patent.
Petitioner likewise asseverates that the rate of royalty

fixed by the BPTTT at 2.5% of net sales is grossly
inadequate, taking into consideration its huge investments
of money, time and other resources in the research and
development, as well as marketing of Cimetidine. It is
further alleged that such rate has no factual basis since the
appellate court and the BPTTT relied solely on analogous 23
cases and did not explain how such rate was arrived at.
Lastly, petitioner claims that the appellate court erred in
ruling that private respondent had complied with the
requirement of publication of the notice of the filing of the
petition for compulsory license because private respondent
failed to formally offer in evidence copies of the notice of
filing of the petition and notice of the date of hearing thereof
as published and the affidavits of publication thereof. Thus,
it says, the BPTTT did not properly 24acquire jurisdiction
over the petition for compulsory license.
In its Comment to the Petition, private respondent
adopted the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in the
assailed decision
25
and prayed that the petition be denied for
lack of merit.
The petition has no merit.
_________________
of a sub-license, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill

which exploits such license.
21 Petition, Rollo, pp. 17–18.
22 Id., at 20.
23 Id., at 21–22.
24 Id., at 24–28.
25 Comment to Petition for Review on Certiorari, Id., at 60–66.
16

Appeals
The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the validity of

the grant by the BPTTT of a compulsory license to private
respondent for the use, manufacture and sale of Cimetidine.
The said grant is in accord with Section 34 of the Patent
Law which provides:
Grounds for Compulsory Licensing.—(1) Any person
may apply to the Director for the grant of a license
under a particular patent at any time after the
expiration of two years from the date of the grant of
the patent, under any of the following

circumstances:
(a) If the patented invention is not being worked within

the Philippines on a commercial scale, although
capable of being so worked, without satisfactory
reason;
(b) If the demand of the patented article in the
Philippines is not being met to an adequate extent
and on reasonable terms;
(c) If, by reason of refusal of the patentee to grant a
license or licenses on reasonable terms, or by reason
of the conditions attached by the patentee to licensee
or to the purchase, lease or use of the patented
article or working of the patented process or machine
for production, the establishment of any new trade
or industry in the Philippines is prevented, or the
trade or industry therein is unduly restrained;
(d) If the working of the invention within the country is
being prevented or hindered by the importation of
the patented article;
(e) If the patented invention or article relates to
food or medicine or manufactured substances
which can be used as food or medicine, or is
necessary for public health or public safety.
(2) In any of the above cases, a compulsory

license shall be granted to the petitioner
provided that he has proved his capability to
work the patented ‘product or to make use of
the patented product in the manufacture of a
useful product, or to employ the patented
process.
(3) The term “worked” or “working” as used in this
section means the manufacture and sale of the
patented article, of patented machine, or the
application of the patented process for production, in
or by means of a definite and substantial
establishment or organization in the Philippines
and on a scale which is reasonable and adequate
under the circumstances. Importation shall not
constitute “working.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The grant of the compulsory license satisfies the

requirements of the foregoing provision. More than ten
years have passed since the patent for Cimetidine was
issued to petitioner and its predecessors-
17
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 17

Appeals
in-interest, and the compulsory license applied for by

private respondent is for the use, manufacture and sale of a
medicinal product. Furthermore, both the appellate court
and the BPTTT found that private respondent had the
capability to work Cimetidine or to make use thereof in the
manufacture of a useful product.
Petitioner’s contention that Section 34 of the Patent Law
contravenes the Paris Convention because the former
provides for grounds for the grant of a compulsory license in
addition to those found in the latter, is likewise incorrect.
Article 5, Section A(2) of the Paris Convention states:
Each country of the union shall have the right to take legislative
measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent
the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive
26
rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.
This issue has already been resolved by this Court in the

case of Smith
27
Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs. Court of
Appeals, where petitioner herein questioned the BPTTT’s
grant of a compulsory license to Doctors Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. also for the manufacture, use and sale of Cimetidine.
We found no inconsistency between Section 34 and the Paris
Convention and held that:
It is thus clear that Section A(2) of Article 5 [of the Paris

Convention] unequivocally and explicitly respects the right
of member countries to adopt legislative measures to
provide for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent
abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive
rights conferred by the patent. An example provided of
possible abuses is “failure to work;” however, as such, is
merely supplied by way of an example, it is plain that the
treaty does not preclude the inclusion of other forms of
categories of abuses.
Section 34 of R.A. No. 165, even if the Act was enacted prior to
the Philippines’ adhesion to the Convention, fits well within the
aforequoted provisions of Article 5 of the Paris Convention. In the
explanatory note of Bill No. 1156 which eventually became R.A. No.
165, the legislative intent in the grant of a compulsory
license was not only to afford
________________
26 61 O.G. 8011, 8016 (1965).

27 276 SCRA 224 (1997).
18

Appeals
others an opportunity to provide the public with the

quantity of the patented product, but also to prevent the
growth of monopolies [Congressional Record, House of
Representatives, 12 May 957, 998]. Certainly, the growth of
monopolies was among the abuses which Section A, Article
5 of the Convention foresaw, and which our Congress 28
likewise wished to prevent in enacting R.A. No. 165.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Neither does the Court agree with petitioner that the grant
of the compulsory license to private respondent was
erroneous because the same would lead the public to think
that the Cimetidine is the invention of private respondent
and not of petitioner. Such fears are unfounded since, as the
appellate court pointed out in the assailed decision, by the
grant of the compulsory license, private respondent as
licensee explicitly acknowledges that petitioner
29
is the source
of the patented product Cimetidine. Even assuming
arguendo that such confusion may indeed occur, the
disadvantage is far outweighed by the benefits resulting
from the grant of the compulsory license, such as an
increased supply of pharmaceutical products containing
Cimetidine,
30
and the consequent reduction in the prices
thereof.
There is likewise no basis for the allegation that the
grant of a compulsory license to private respondent results
in the deprivation of petitioner’s property without just
compensation. It must be pointed out that as owner of
Letters Patent No. 12207, petitioner had already enjoyed
exclusive rights to manufacture, use and sell Cimetidine for
at least two years from its grant in November, 1978. Even if
other entities like private respondent are subsequently
allowed to manufacture, use and sell the patented invention
by virtue of a compulsory license, petitioner as owner of the
patent would still receive remuneration for the use of such
product in the form. of royalties.
Anent the perceived inadequacy of the royalty awarded

to petitioner, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the
rate of 2.5% of
_______________
28 Id., at 237.
30 See Parke Davis & Co. vs. Doctor’s Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 14 SCRA
1053, 1061 (1965).
19
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 19

Appeals
net wholesale price fixed by the Director of the BPTTT is in

accord with the Patent Law. Said law provides:
Sec. 35. Grant of License.—(1) If the Director finds that a case for
the grant of a license under Section 34 hereof has been made out,
he shall, within one hundred eighty days from the date the petition
was filed, order the grant of an appropriate license. The order
shall state the terms and conditions of the license which he
himself must fix in default of an agreement on the matter
manifested or submitted by the parties during the hearing.
xxx
Section 35-B. Terms and Conditions of Compulsory License.—(1)
A compulsory license shall be non-exclusive, but this shall be
without prejudice to the licensee’s right to oppose an application for
such a new license.
(2) The terms and conditions of a compulsory license, fixed in

accordance with Section 35, may contain obligations and
restrictions both for the licensee and for the registered
owner of the patent.
(3) A compulsory license shall only be granted subject to
the payment of adequate royalties commensurate
with the extent to which the invention is worked.
However, royalty payments shall not exceed five
percent (5%) of the net wholesale price (as defined in
Section 33-A) of the products manufactured under the
license. If the product, substance, or process subject of the
compulsory license is involved in an industrial project
approved by the Board of Investments, the royalty payable
to the patentee or patentees shall not exceed three percent
(3%) of the net wholesale price (as defined in Section 33-A)
of the patented commodity/and or commodity manufactured

under the patented process; the same rate of royalty shall be
paid whenever two or more patents are involved; which
royalty shall be distributed to the patentees in rates
proportional to the extent of commercial use by the licensee
giving preferential values to the holder of the oldest
subsisting product patent.
xxx
Under the aforequoted provisions, in the absence of any

agreement between the parties with respect to a compulsory
license, the Director of the BPTTT may fix the terms
thereof, including the rate of the royalty payable to the
licensor. The law explicitly provides that the rate of royalty
shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the net wholesale price.
20

Appeals
The Court agrees with the appellate court’s ruling that the
rate of royalty payments fixed by the Director of the BPTTT
is reasonable.31 The appellate court, citing Price vs. United
Laboratories, ruled as such, considering that the
compulsory license awarded to private respondent consists
only of the bare right to use the patented invention in the
manufacture of another product,
32
without any technical
assistance from the licensor. Furthermore, this Court had
earlier noted in the Price case that identical royalty rates
have been prescribed 33by the Director of the BPTTT in
numerous patent cases.
There was thus no error on the part of the Court of
Appeals in affirming the royalty rate fixed by the Director of
the BPTTT, since it was not shown that the latter erred or
abused his discretion in prescribing said rate. The rule is
that factual findings of administrative bodies, which are
considered as experts in their respective
________________
31 166 SCRA 133, 137–138 (1988).

33 In Price vs. United Laboratories, supra, at 138, this Court noted:
Furthermore, as pointed out in respondent’s comment on the petition,
identical terms and conditions had been prescribed for the grant of
compulsory license in a good number of patent cases (United
Laboratories, Inc. vs. Boehringer Ingelheim, GMBH, IPC 929, July 27,
1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Bristol-Myers Company, IPC 1179,
Aug. 20, 1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Squibb & Sons, Inc., IPC
1349, Sept. 30, 1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Helmut Weber, et al.,
IPC 949, Dec. 13, 1982; Oceanic Pharmacal, Inc. vs. Gruppo Lepetit S.A.,
IPC 1549, Dec. 21, 1982; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Boehringer
Ingelheim, IPC 1185, June 8, 1983; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Pfizer
Corp., IPC 1184, June 10, 1983; Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Maggi,
et al., July 11, 1983; Drugmaker’s Laboratories vs. Herningen, et al., IPC
1679, September 22, 1983; Superior Pharmacraft, Inc. vs. Maggi, et al.,
IPC 1759, January 10, 1984; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Van Gelder, et
al., IPC 1927, June 29, 1984; Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc. vs. Janssen
Pharmaceutical N.V., IPC 1555, August 27, 1984; United Laboratories,
Inc. vs. Graham John Durant, et al., IPC 1731, August 14, 1987; United
Laboratories, Inc. vs. Albert Anthony Carr, IPC 1906, August 31, 1987.
21
VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 21

Appeals
fields, are accorded not only respect but even

34
finality if the
same are supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the
BPTTT over the petition filed by private respondent for
failure to comply with the publication reqiurement under
Section 35-F of R.A. No. 165, the Court holds that petitioner
is estopped from questioning the same since it did not raise
the issue of lack of jurisdiction at the earliest possible35
opportunity, i.e., during the hearings before the BPTTT.
The Court notes that petitioner raised this contention for
the first time when it appealed the case to the appellate
court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Pardo and

Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.—Intellectual and industrial property rights cases

are not simple property cases. (Mirpuri vs. Court of Appeals,
318 SCRA 516 [1999])
——o0o——
________________
34 Golden Thread Knitting Industries, Inc. vs. National Labor

Relations Commission, 304 SCRA 568, 576 (1999).
35 Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals,
supra, at 241–242.
22
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Smith Lab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smith Lab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smith Lab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/3/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 368

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 9

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD.,

Patent Law; Intellectual Property; The grant of the compulsory

the same are supported by substantial evidence.—The Court agrees

* FIRST DIV ISION.

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

another product, without any technical assistance from the licensor.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision

reconsideration filed by petitioner Smith Kline and French

1 Smith Kline and French Laboratories, Ltd., Petitioner, vs. Hon.

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 11

to Graham John Durant, John2 Collin Emmett and Robin

public safety and6

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of pharmaceutical products containing Cimetidine and

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of the

In affirming the decision of the BPTTT, the appellate court

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 13

that what was granted under the compulsory license is only

I. The respondent Court erred in upholding the

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

While petitioner concedes that the State in the exercise of

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 15

sion of grounds for the grant of a compulsory license in

Petitioner likewise asseverates that the rate of royalty

of a sub-license, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the validity of

the patent, under any of the following

(a) If the patented invention is not being worked within

(2) In any of the above cases, a compulsory

The grant of the compulsory license satisfies the

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 17

in-interest, and the compulsory license applied for by

This issue has already been resolved by this Court in the

It is thus clear that Section A(2) of Article 5 [of the Paris

26 61 O.G. 8011, 8016 (1965).

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

others an opportunity to provide the public with the

Anent the perceived inadequacy of the royalty awarded

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 19

net wholesale price fixed by the Director of the BPTTT is in

(2) The terms and conditions of a compulsory license, fixed in

of the patented commodity/and or commodity manufactured

Under the aforequoted provisions, in the absence of any

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

31 166 SCRA 133, 137–138 (1988).

VOL. 368, OCTOBER 23, 2001 21

fields, are accorded not only respect but even

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Pardo and

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—Intellectual and industrial property rights cases

34 Golden Thread Knitting Industries, Inc. vs. National Labor

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like