You are on page 1of 2

SMITHKLINEBECKMANCORPORATIONvs.

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSand
TRYCOPHARMACORPORATION
[G.R.No.126627.August14,2003]

FACTS:
OnOctober8,1976,SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationfiled,asassignee,beforethePhilippinePatent
Office(nowBureauofPatents,TrademarksandTechnologyTransfer)anapplicationforpatentoveran
inventionentitledMethodsandCompositionsforProducingBiphasicParasiticideActivityUsingMethyl5
Propylthio2BenzimidazoleCarbamate.

OnSeptember24,1981,LettersPatentNo.14561fortheaforesaidinventionwasissuedtoSmithKline
foratermofseventeen(17)years.

SmithKline,however,suedTrycoPharmaCorporation,adomesticcorporationthatmanufactures,
distributesandsellsveterinaryproductsincludingImpregon,forinfringementofpatentandunfair
competitionbeforetheCaloocanCityRegionalTrialCourt(RTC).

Itclaimedthatitspatentcoversor
includesthesubstanceAlbendazolesuchthatTrycoPharmaCorporation,bymanufacturing,selling,using,
andcausingtobesoldandusedthedrugImpregonwithoutitsauthorization,infringedClaims2,3,4,7,8
and9ofLettersPatentNo.14561.

Branch125oftheCaloocanRTCissuedatemporaryrestrainingorderagainstTrycoPharmaenjoiningit
fromcommittingactsofpatentinfringementandunfaircompetition.Awritofpreliminaryinjunctionwas
subsequentlyissued.

TrycoPharmainitsAnsweraverredthatLettersPatentNo.14561doesnotcoverthesubstance
AlbendazolefornowhereinitdoesthatwordappearthatevenifthepatentweretoincludeAlbendazole,
suchsubstanceisunpatentableandthatLettersPatentNo.14561isnullandvoid,theapplicationforthe
issuancethereofhavingbeenfiledbeyondtheoneyearperiodfromthefilingofanapplicationabroadfor
thesameinventioncoveredthereby,inviolationofSection15ofRepublicActNo.165(ThePatentLaw)
andthatSmithKlineisnottheregisteredpatentholder.

TrycoPharmalodgedaCounterclaimagainstSmithKlineforsuchamountofactualdamages.

ThetrialcourtrenderedadecisiondeclaringtheLettersPatentNo.14561asnullandvoidforbeingin
violationofSections7,9and15ofthePatentsLaw.Subsequently,theCourtofAppealsupheldthetrial
courtsfindingthatTrycoPharmawasnotliableforanyinfringementofthepatentofSmithKlineinlight
ofthelattersfailuretoshowthatAlbendazoleisthesameasthecompoundsubjectofLettersPatentNo.
14561.TheCA,however,declaredthatLettersPatentNo.14561wasnotvoidasitsustained
petitionersexplanationthatPatentApplicationSerialNo.18989,whichwaswasdeemedfiledonJune17,
1995orstillwithinoneyearfromthefilingofapatentapplicationabroadincompliancewiththeoneyear
ruleunderSection15ofthePatentLaw.

ISSUE:WhetherornottheAlbendazole,theactiveingredientinTrycosImpregondrug,isincludedin
SmithKlinesLettersPatentNo.14561,andthatconsequentlyTrycoisanswerableforpatent
infringement.

HELD:
TheCourtfoundnothinginfirmintheCAsconclusionswithrespecttotheprincipalissueofwhether
privaterespondentcommittedpatentinfringementtotheprejudiceofpetitioner.

Theburdenofprooftosubstantiateachargeforpatentinfringementrestsontheplaintiff.

Inthecaseat
bar,SmithKlinesevidenceconsistsprimarilyofitsLettersPatentNo.14561,andthetestimonyofDr.
Orinion,itsgeneralmanagerinthePhilippinesforitsAnimalHealthProductsDivision,bywhichitsought
toshowthatitspatentforthecompoundmethyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamatealsocoversthe
substanceAlbendazole.Fromareadingofthe9claimsofLettersPatentNo.14561inrelationtotheother
portionsthereof,nomentionismadeofthecompoundAlbendazole.

Whenthelanguageofitsclaimsisclearanddistinct,thepatenteeisboundtherebyandmaynotclaim
anythingbeyondthem.

ItbearsstressingthatthemereabsenceofthewordAlbendazoleinLettersPatent
No.14561isnotdeterminativeofAlbendazolesnoninclusionintheclaimsofthepatent.While
AlbendazoleisadmittedlyachemicalcompoundthatexistsbyanamedifferentfromthatcoveredinSmith
Klinesletterspatent,thelanguageofLetterPatentNo.14561failstoyieldanythingatallregarding
Albendazole.AndnoextrinsicevidencehadbeenadducedtoprovethatAlbendazoleinheresinSmith
Klinespatentinspiteofitsomissiontherefromorthatthemeaningoftheclaimsofthepatentembraces
thesame.

TheCourtwaslikewiseurgedtoapplythedoctrineofequivalents.Thedoctrineofequivalentsprovides
thataninfringementalsotakesplacewhenadeviceappropriatesapriorinventionbyincorporatingits
innovativeconceptand,althoughwithsomemodificationandchange,performssubstantiallythesame
functioninsubstantiallythesamewaytoachievesubstantiallythesameresult.

SmithKlinesevidencefailstoconvincetheCourtofthesubstantialsamenessofitspatentedcompound
andAlbendazole.Whilebothcompoundshavetheeffectofneutralizingparasitesinanimals,identityof
resultdoesnotamounttoinfringementofpatentunlessAlbendazoleoperatesinsubstantiallythesame
wayorbysubstantiallythesamemeansasthepatentedcompound,eventhoughitperformsthesame
functionandachievesthesameresult.

Theprincipleormodeofoperationmustbethesameor
substantiallythesame.

Moreover,thetestimonyofDr.OrinionlendsnosupporttoSmithKlinescause,henothavingbeen
presentedorqualifiedasanexpertwitnesswhohastheknowledgeorexpertiseonthematterofchemical
compounds.