Parke Davis & Co. v.

Doctor's Pharmaceuticals

Petitioner: Parke Davis & Company a US Corp. is the owner of a patent entitled "Process for the
Manufacturing of Antibiotics" which was issued by the Philippine Patent Office on February 9, 1950.
The patent relates to a chemical compound represented by a formula commonly
called chloramphenicol. The patent contains ten claims, nine of which are process claims, and the
other is a product claim to the chemical substance chloramphenicol.

Respondent: Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Philippine Corp, requested from Parke Davis & Co that
it be granted a voluntary license "to manufacture and produce its own brand of medicine, containing
chloramphenicol, and to use, sell, distribute, or otherwise dispose of the same in the Philippines under
such terms and conditions as may be deemed reasonable and mutually satisfactory," to which Parke
Davis & Co replied requesting information concerning the facilities and plans for the manufacture
of chloramphenicol. The latter answered saying that it did not intend to
manufacture chloramphenicol itself but its purpose was merely to use it in its own brand of medicinal
preparations, emphasizing that its request for license was based on an express provision of the
Philippine law which has reference to patents that had been in existence for more than three years
from their dates of issue.
-PD & Co did not grant the request for a voluntary license so Doctors' Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed on
March 11, 1960 a petition with the Director of Patents, praying that it be granted a compulsory license.
-Respondent contention: that the patented invention relates to medicine and is necessary for public
health and safety.
- Director of Patents granted to respondents the license it prayed for and ordered a licensing
agreement by the parties

Issue: Whether or not Parke Davis should yield to the compulsory licensing?

Held: No bibili nga sa inyo, magbabayad ng royalties. It will benefit the public. After 3 years, pwede
na. The right to exclude others from the manufacturing, using, or vending an invention relating to food
or medicine should be conditioned to allowing any person to manufacture, use, or vend the same after
a period of 3 years from the date of the grant of the letters patent. In the case, more than 3 years has
already passed. Given the scenario, Dr Pharmaceuticals is already entitled of the grant. Parke Davis
will be compensated.  SC said that Dr Pharmaceuticals has no intention of competing with Parke
Davis, rather they will be creating their own brand. The chloramphenicol will be used to make another
product, a raw material. 
In this case, they were contending that it is necessary for public health and safety. In effect, the
chloramphenicol that will be used by Dr Pharmaceuticals can be helped in a disease. SC said also
that public will benefit from the increase in supply and lower prices in medicines.
Park Davis, as a patentee, has a right to exclude others from using it.  Right of monopoly has
limitations. Even those limitations are subject to the rights to compensations. The patentee will have
to accept the rights on their patents, but they have to be paid. You may actually do voluntary license
or be compelled by Govt. Patent is a statutory right .