This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Facts: P sought nullification of a search warrant issued by respondent court on the ground that the respondent court has no jurisdiction over the offense since it was not delegated as a special court for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and that the application for search warrant should have been dismissed since it was not accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping. Issue: Whether the search warrant should be nullified on the said grounds. Held: No. The authority to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts. Administrative Order No. 113-95 merely specified which court could try and decide cases involving violations of IPR. It did not, and could not, vest exclusive jurisdiction with regard to all matters (including the issuance of search warrants and other judicial processes) in any one court. Jurisdiction is conferred upon courts by substantive law; in this case, BP Blg. 129, and not by procedural rule.
Godines v. Ca The patent involved in this case is Letters Patent No. UM-2236 issued by the Philippine Patent Office to one Magdalena S. Villaruz on July 15, 1976. It covers a utility model for a hand tractor or power tiller
The above mentioned patent was acquired by SV-Agro Industries Enterprises, Inc., herein private respondent, from Magdalena Villaruz, its chairman and president, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed by the latter in its favor. On October 31, 1979, SV-Agro Industries caused the publication of the patent in Bulletin Today, a newspaper of general circulation. In accordance with the patent, private respondent manufactured and sold the patented power tillers with the patent imprinted on them. In 1979, SV-Agro Industries suffered a decline of more than 50% in sales in its Molave, Zamboanga del Sur branch. Upon investigation, it discovered that power tillers similar to those patented by private respondent were being manufactured and sold by petitioner herein. Consequently, private respondent notified Pascual Godines about the existing patent and demanded that the latter stop selling and manufacturing similar power tillers. Upon petitioner's failure to comply with the demand, SV-Agro Industries filed before the Regional Trial Court a complaint for infringement of patent and unfair competition.
Thereafter, this petition was filed. Petitioner maintains the defenses which he raised before the trial and appellate courts, to wit: that he was not engaged in the manufacture and sale of the power tillers as he made them only upon the special order of his customers who gave their own specifications; hence, he could not be liable for infringement of patent and unfair competition;
If accused matter clearly falls within the claim. the operating handle. resort must be had. infringement is made out and that is the end of it. The patent issued by the Patent Office referred to a "farm implement but more particularly to a turtle hand tractor having a vacuumatic housing float on which the engine drive is held in place. The fact that petitioner herein manufactured and sold power tillers without patentee's authority has been established by the courts despite petitioner's claims to the contrary. performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. We are compelled to arrive at no other conclusion but that there was infringement. Recognizing that the logical fallback position of one in the place of defendant is to aver that his product is different from the patented one. would be enough to take the copied matter outside the claim." 13 The reason for the doctrine of equivalents is that to permit the imitation of a patented invention which does not copy any literal detail would be to convert the protection of the patent grant into a hollow and useless thing. 12 Thus. These are (a) literal infringement. .and that those made by him were different from those being manufactured and sold by private respondent. to the words of the claim. and (b) the doctrine of equivalents. Petitioner's argument that his power tillers were different from private respondent's is that of a drowning man clutching at straws. Such imitation would leave room for ² indeed encourage ² the unscrupulous copyist to make unimportant and insubstantial changes and substitutions in the patent which. in the first instance. and hence outside the reach of the law. according to this doctrine. though adding nothing. albeit with some modification and change. 14 . the court must juxtapose the claims of the patent and the accused product within the overall context of the claims and specifications. 7 In using literal infringement as a test. it is also observed that petitioner also called his power tiller as a floating power tiller. the harrow housing with its operating handle and the paddy wheel protective covering." 8 To determine whether the particular item falls within the literal meaning of the patent claims." 11 It appears from the foregoing observation of the trial court that these claims of the patent and the features of the patented utility model were copied by petitioner. . ". 9 Moreover. The question now arises: Did petitioner's product infringe upon the patent of private respondent? Tests have been established to determine infringement. "(a)n infringement also occurs when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and. to determine whether there is exact identity of all material elements. courts have adopted the doctrine of equivalents which recognizes that minor modifications in a patented invention are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal infringement.
amending sec. 4 in relation to secs. 3 and 5 of RA 8204. Tyco Pharma opposed the application for patent contending that the product of the petitioner proposed to be patented is substantially the same as their product. Issue: Is there infringement? Held: The SC in defining the ³Doctrine of Equivalents´ stated that infringement also takes place when a particular devise appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and although with some modification and changes performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. the Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008.Smithklein Beckman vs CA (Aug 14. The SC held that this doctrine does not apply in the instant case because Tyco Pharma failed to substantiate its claim that the two products works the same way in fighting parasites in animals. 72 of the Intellectual Property Code. Tyco then contended that there is infringement of patent due to violation of doctrine of equivalents. The only difference is the use of one ingredient. The Court also made permanent the temporary restraining order it had previously issued. The Supreme Court recently issued a writ of prohibition stopping the prosecution of an importer of unregistered drugs for violation of sec.´ . 3(b) (3) thereof includes ³an unregistered drug product. Petitioner Romeo Rodriguez has been charged with violation of sec. there was no infringement. The Court found that RA 9502. 4 of the SLCD prohibiting the sale of counterfeit drugs. the Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs (SLCD). 2003) Facts: Petitioner in this case filed an application for a patent of a drug used to kill parasites in animals. Therefore. clearly grants third persons the right to import drugs or medicines whose patent were registered in the Philippines by the owner of the product. which under sec.
the State has reversed course and allowed for a sensible and compassionate approach with respect to the importation of pharmaceutical drugs urgently necessary for the people¶s constitutionally recognized right to health. RTC of Guagua.´ declared the Court. Where a statute of later date.´ Notwithstanding RD¶s motion for reconsideration. The drug store was raided pursuant to a search warrant issued upon the complaint of SmithKline Beecham Research Limited (SmithKline. herein private respondent). HELD: The SC ruled in favor of RD. such as Rep. that it has violated his right to equal protection as it banned him access from such medicines. soulless legislative piece´ for equating the importers of unregistered drugs with ³malevolents who would alter or counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs for reasons of profit at the expense of public safety. the provincial prosecutor recommended that Rodriguez be tried. There was no claim though that the subject seized drugs were adulterated or mislabeled. now Glaxo SmithKline. RD is not purchasing those medicines via local Smithkline ± the authorized distributor of Smithkline in the Philippines. 149907. which were manufactured by SmithKline. Petitioner owns Roma Drug in San Matias. 9502 since the latter indubitably grants private third persons the right to import or otherwise use such drugs. RD is apparently one of 6 pharmacies who are directly importing 5 medicines produced by Smithknline from abroad. ³It is laudable that with the passage of Rep Act No.´ observed the Court. Guagua. The seized medicines. the International Red Crescent. Pampanga.´ It noted that the SLCD would make criminals of doctors from abroad on medical missions of such humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Cross.as defined by RA 8203 ³Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs. April 16. The Court also described the SLCD ³as a heartless. Act No. ISSUE: Whether or not SLCD violates equal protection. clearly reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject that intention must be given effect. Pampanga. was raided by the NBI upon request of Smithkline ± a pharmaceutical company (now Glaxo Smithkline). a duly registered corporation which is the local distributor of pharmaceutical products manufactured by its parent London-based corporation. the authorized Philippine distributor and thus were classified as ³counterfeit´ under the SLCD. Roma Drug v. among other things. were imported directly from abroad and not purchased through the local SmithKline. Smithkline Phil avers that because the medicines were not purchased from a Philippine registered counterpart of Smithkline then the products imported by RD are considered as counterfeit or ³unregistered imported drug product´ . and Medicin Sans Frontieres. 2009) Roma Drug. (GR No. owned by Rodriguez.³[I]t is clear that SLCD¶s classification of µunregistered imported drugs¶ as µcounterfeit drugs¶ and of corresponding criminal penalties therefore are irreconcilably in conflict with Rep. It does not allow private 3rd parties to import such medicines abroad even in cases of life and death nor does it allow the importation by 3rd parties in cases wherein the stocks of such medicine would run out. 9502. 9502. It discriminates at the expense of Filipinos who cannot travel abroad to . Act No. Rodriguez assails the constitutionality of SLCD averring. The SC denounced SLCD for it violated equal protection.
Nevertheless. The SC noted that this law provided and recognized the constitutionally-guaranteed right of the public to health. This law does not expressly repeal SLCD but it emphasized that any medicine introduced into the Philippines by its patent holder be accessible to anyone. . It provides that the right to import drugs and medicines shall be available to any government agency OR ANY PRIVATE 3rd PARTY.purchase such medicines yet need them badly. the flawed intention of Congress had been abrogated by the passage of RA 9502 ³Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008´ and its IRR.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?