Name: Richel G. Garcia Professor : Prof.

Jeric Dalipe
Year and Section : BSCA 3-1

CASE TITLE : SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD. plaintiff-appellee, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and DANLEX RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., defendant-
appellant.
Case Number : GR No. 121267

Facts:
 Patent was issued by the BPTTT to Graham John Durant, John Collin Emmett
and Robin Genellin on November 29, 1978. 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. Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd.
(Smith Kline) 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. The petitioner claimed that since
Cimetidine's production, use, and sales fit the demands of the Philippine
market, a mandatory license to produce, use, and sell the drug was
unnecessary.

The BPTTT ruled in favor of Danlex, granting compulsory license to private

respondent to use, manufacture, and sell in the Philippines its own brand of
pharmaceutical products containing Cimetidine. Smith Kline & French
Laboratories, Ltd. (Smith Kline) thereafter filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals a petition for review of the decision of the BPTTT, which affirmed the
BPTTT's decision. Smith Kline then brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
 Does the BPTTT's decision to provide a compulsory license to Danlex
Research Laboratories infringe any patent laws?
 Did Danlex comply with the jurisdictional requirement of publication under
the Patent Law?

Ruling:
 No, the BPTTT’s decision to grant ccompulsory license to danlex research
Laboratories was valid and accordance with patent law.
 Yes. as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the BPTTT over the petition filed
by private respondent for failure to comply with the publication requirement
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 possible 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.
Case Title: AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PENNSWELL,
INC. Respondent.
Case Number: GR NO. 172835

Facts:
 Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in
the business of air transportation services. On the other hand, respondent
Pennswell, Inc. was organized to engage in the business of manufacturing
and selling industrial chemicals, solvents, and special lubricants. Involving
the alleged fraudulent sale of products and subsequent refusal of payment
for other products delivered under various purchase orders. The petitioner
contested the payment, alleging that some products previously purchased
were misrepresented as new when they were identical to products it had
previously bought from the respondent, only under different labels. Petitioner
filed a Motion to Compel the respondent to disclose the chemical components
of certain products for comparison. Granted the motion but later reversed it,
recognizing the components as trade secrets. Petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals which
denied the Petition and affirmed the Order dated 30 June 2004 of the RTC.
Issue:

 Whether the ruling of the trial court that the chemical components or
ingredients of the respondent's products are trade secrets or industrial
secrets that are exempt from compulsory disclosure was upheld by the
court of appeals in accordance with precedent and prevailing laws.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of both
the Court of Appeals and the RTC. The Court of Appeals which upheld the
finding of the RTC that there is substantial basis for respondent to seek
protection of the law for its proprietary rights over the detailed chemical
composition of its products. This Court has ruled that all agreements
concerning intellectual property are intimately connected with economic
development. The protection of industrial property encourages investments
in new ideas and inventions and stimulates creative efforts for the
satisfaction of human needs. RTC and the Court of Appeals is that the
chemical formulation of respondent’s products is not known to the general
public and is unique only to it. Both courts uniformly ruled that these
ingredients are not within the knowledge of the public.
Case Title: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND HON. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Case Number: GR NO. 204605

Facts:
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, the Petitioner,
HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
ALBERT DEL ROSARIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND HON. RICARDO BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, the Respondents. Petitioner IP AP The Madrid System for the
International Registration of Marks (Madrid System) is a centralized system
that allows trademark owners to file one application in one language and pay
one set of fees to protect their mark in territories of up to 97 member-states.
The DFA recommended the Philippines' accession to the Madrid Protocol in
September 2011, and on March 27, 2012, President Benigno C. Aquino III
ratified it through an instrument of accession. Petitioner IP AP, an association
of more than 100 law firms and individual practitioners in Intellectual Property
Law whose main objective is to promote and protect intellectual property
rights in the Philippines through constant assistance and involvement in the
legislation of intellectual property law, 10 has commenced this special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition11 to challenge the validity of the
President's accession to the Madrid Protocol without the concurrence of the
Senate

Issue:
 Doesthe President's ratification of the Madrid Protocol is valid and
constitutional
 Whether or not the Madrid Protocol is in conflict with the IP Code.

Ruling:
  Yes. The Court ruled that the President's ratification of the Madrid Protocol is
valid and constitutional as an executive agreement, which does not require
Senate concurrence. The registration of trademarks and copyrights have
been the subject of executive agreements entered into without the
concurrence of the Senate.

 No. There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP Code.
The Madrid Protocol does not amend or modify the IP Code on the acquisition
of trademark rights considering that the applications under the Madrid
Protocol are still examined according to the relevant national law, In that
regard, the IPOPHL will only grant protection to a mark that meets the local
registration requirements.
WHEREFORE, this Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari and prohibition for
lack of merit; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.