You are on page 1of 1


since it already expired on July 16, 2004, it has no more monopoly

CASE: Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. + no more basis for issuance the injunction against Pharmawealth
167715, 17 November 2010
ISSUE: Can in injunctive relief be issued based on an action of patent infringement
1. Pfizer was issued a patent on July 16, 1987 w/c was valid until July 16, when the patent allegedly infringed has already lapsed? NO.
2. Patent: covers Ampicillin (anti-biotic) under the brand name Unasyn HELD: In favor of Pharmawealth
a. Sole distributer: Zuelling Pharma
3. 2003: Received complaints that Phil. Pharmawealth submitted bids for Sec. 37 RA 165 (governing law during this case) provides that the patentee shall
supply of the Ampicillin to several hospital w/out the consent of Pfizer have exclusive right to make, use and sell the patented machine, article or product,
4. They sent a notice to desist from accepting bids for the supply of the said and to use the patented process for the purpose of industry or commerce,
product but refused to comply therewith. throughout the territory of the Philippines for the term of the patent; . . . .
5. Pfizer prayed for issuance of a TRO + PI to prevent Pharmawealth from
selling the said product to any entity in the PH before the BLA-IP  Hence, the exclusive right of a patentee to make, use and sell a patented
6. July 15, 2003: BLA-IPO issued a prelim. injunction (effective: 90 days) product, article or process exists only during the term of the patent.
a. before the expiration, Pfizer filed a motion to extend the  IN THIS CASE, the patent of Pfizer & which was the basis of filing their
effectivity of the said PI complaint w/ the BLA-IPO was issued on July 16, 1987.
b. BUT it was denied by the BLA-IPO on Oct. 15, 2003 o Pfizer admitted in their complaint such date of issuance and
c. Pfizer filed MR but denied by BLA-IPO on Jan. 23, 2004 admitted the validity of the patent was only until July 16, 2004.
7. Pfizer filed SCA Certiorari w/ CA o Sec. 21 RA 165: term of patent was 17 yrs for date of issuance
a. assailing those 2 resolutions of the BLA-IPO
b. also prayed for issuance of PI for reinstatement + extension of the Note: Sec. 3 R58 of ROC (requirement for issuance of writ of PI)
writ of PI issued by the BLA-IPO
8. While case was pending before the CA, Pfizer filed w/ RTC Makati for a. That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
infringement + unfair competition against Pharmawealth consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
a. also prayed for issuance of TRO + PI b. That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of
b. RTC (Aug. 24, 2004): issued order directing the issuance of TRO during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
upon Pfizer’s filing of a bond c. That a party, court, or agency or a person is doing, threatening, or attempting to do, or is
9. Nov. 16, 2004: Pharmawealth filed MTD on the ground of forum shopping procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the
(same purpose to restrain them from disturbing the product) judgment ineffectual.
10. April 6, 2005: RTC issued a writ of PI prohibiting Pharmawealth from selling
the said products Summary: 2 requisites
11. Jan. 18, 2005: CA approved the bond posted by Pfizer a. Existence of clear + unmistakable right that must be protected ; and
12. Feb. 7, 2005: Pharmawealth filed a MTD since the case is already MOOT + b. Urgent + paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage
ACADEMIC because the patent already lapsed.
a. TRO issued by CA is void because the patent right sought to be
protected was already extinguished due the lapse of the patent  IN THIS CASE, when CA issued the Jan. 18 2005 resolution w/c approved
license the bond filed by Pfizer, the latter no longer had a right that must be
13. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the resolution protected. Hence, the issuance by the CA of a temporary restraining order
by the CA. in favor of the respondents is not proper.
14. Pharmawealth argued:
a. Pfizer’s exclusive right to monopolize the subject matter of the
patent exists only within the term of the patent.