You are on page 1of 13

VOL.

409,AUGUST14,2003
33
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

G.R.No.126627.August14,2003.*
SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and TRYCO PHARMA
CORPORATION,respondents.
IntellectualPropertyLaw;Appeals;Onlyquestionsoflawmayberaisedina
petitionforreviewoncertiorari.Ashasrepeatedlybeenheld,onlyquestionsoflaw
mayberaisedinapetitionforreviewoncertioraribeforethisCourt.Unlessthe
factualfindingsoftheappellatecourtaremistaken,absurd,speculative,conjectural,
conflicting,taintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,orcontrarytothefindingsculled
bythecourtoforigin,thisCourtdoesnotreviewthem.
Same; Patents; When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the
patenteeisboundtherebyandmaynotclaimanythingbeyondthem.Whenthe
languageofitsclaimsisclearanddistinct,thepatenteeisboundtherebyandmaynot
claimanythingbeyondthem.Andsoarethecourtsboundwhichmaynotaddtoor
detractfromtheclaimsmattersnotexpressedornecessarilyimplied,normaythey
enlargethepatentbeyondthescopeofthatwhichtheinventorclaimedandthepatent
officeallowed,evenifthepatenteemayhavebeenentitledtosomethingmorethan
thewordsithadchosenwouldinclude.
Same;Same;Infringement;DoctrineofEquivalents;Definition.Thedoctrine
of equivalents provides that an infringement also takes place when a device
appropriatesapriorinventionbyincorporatingitsinnovativeconceptand,although
with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in
substantiallythesamewaytoachievesubstantiallythesameresult.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Doctrine of Equivalents thus requires
satisfactionofthefunctionmeansandresulttest.Thedoctrineofequivalentsthus
requiressatisfactionofthefunctionmeansandresulttest,thepatenteehavingthe
burdentoshowthatallthreecomponentsofsuchequivalencytestaremet.
Damages; Actual Damages; Unearned Profits; It is necessary to prove the
actualamountofdamageswithareasonabledegreeofcertaintybasedoncompetent
proof.Whileindemnificationforactualorcompensatorydamagescoversnotonly
thelosssuffered(damnumemergens)butalsoprofitswhichtheobligeefailedto
obtain (lucrumcessans or ganaciasfrustradas), itisnecessarytoprovetheactual
amountofdamageswitha
_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

34

34
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

reasonable degree of certainty based on competent proof and on the best


evidenceobtainablebytheinjuredparty.
Same;AttorneysFees;Attorneysfeescannotbeawardedwherethereisno
sufficientshowingofbadfaith.Evenifaclaimantiscompelledtolitigatewiththird
personsortoincurexpensestoprotectitsrights,stillattorneysfeesmaynotbe
awardedwherenosufficientshowingofbadfaithcouldbereflectedinapartys
persistenceinacaseotherthananerroneousconvictionoftherighteousnessofhis
cause.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Sapalo&Velezforpetitioner.
EduardoJ.Marino,Jr.forprivaterespondent.
CARPIOMORALES,J.:
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporation(petitioner),acorporationexistingby
virtueofthelawsofthestateofPennsylvania,UnitedStatesofAmerica
(U.S.)andlicensedtodobusinessinthePhilippines,filedonOctober8,
1976, as assignee, before the Philippine Patent Office (now Bureau of
Patents,TrademarksandTechnologyTransfer)anapplicationforpatent
over an invention entitled Methods and Compositions for Producing
BiphasicParasiticideActivityUsingMethyl5Propylthio2Benzimidazole
Carbamate.TheapplicationboreSerialNo.18989.
OnSeptember24,1981,LettersPatentNo.145611 fortheaforesaid
inventionwasissuedtopetitionerforatermofseventeen(17)years.
Theletterspatentprovidesin its claims2 that thepatentedinvention
consistedofanewcompoundnamedmethyl5propylthio2benzimidazole
carbamateandthemethodsorcompositionsutilizingthecompoundasan
activeingredientinfightinginfectionscausedbygastrointestinalparasites

andlungwormsinanimalssuchasswine,sheep,cattle,goats,horses,and
evenpetanimals.
_______________
1Records,ExhibitAatpp.320342.
2Id.,atpp.340341.

VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003

35
35

SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

TrycoPharmaCorporation(privaterespondent)isadomesticcorporation
that manufactures, distributes and sells veterinary products including
Impregon, a drug that has Albendazole for its active ingredient and is
claimedtobeeffectiveagainstgastrointestinalroundworms,lungworms,
tapewormsandflukeinfestationincarabaos,cattleandgoats.
Petitionersuedprivaterespondentforinfringementofpatentandunfair
competition before the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC). 3 It
claimedthatitspatentcoversorincludesthesubstanceAlbendazolesuch
thatprivaterespondent,bymanufacturing,selling,using,andcausingtobe
sold and used the drug Impregon without its authorization, infringed
Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Letters Patent No. 145614 as well as
committed unfair competition under Article 189, paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code and Section 29 of Republic Act No. 166 (The
TrademarkLaw)foradvertisingandsellingasitsownthedrugImpregon
althoughthesamecontainedpetitionerspatentedAlbendazole.5
Onmotionofpetitioner,Branch125oftheCaloocanRTCissueda
temporaryrestrainingorderagainstprivaterespondentenjoiningitfrom
committingactsofpatentinfringementandunfaircompetition.6Awritof
preliminaryinjunctionwassubsequentlyissued.7
PrivaterespondentinitsAnswer8averredthatLettersPatentNo.14561
doesnotcoverthesubstanceAlbendazolefornowhereinitdoesthatword
appear;thatevenifthepatentweretoincludeAlbendazole,suchsubstance
is unpatentable; that the Bureau of Food and Drugs allowed it to
manufacture and market Impregon with Albendazole as its known
ingredient;thatthereisnoproofthatitpassedoffinanywayitsveterinary
productsasthoseofpetitioner;thatLettersPatentNo.14561isnulland
void,theapplicationfortheissuancethereofhavingbeenfiledbeyondthe

one year period from the filing of an application abroad for the same
inventioncoveredthereby,inviolationofSection15ofRepublicActNo.
165 (The Patent Law); and that petitioner is not the registered patent
holder.
_______________
3Recordsatp.1.
4Id.,atpp.23.
5Id.,atp.4.
6Id.,atp.34.
7Id.,atp.250.
8Recordsatpp.3540.

36

36
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

Private respondent lodged a Counterclaim against petitioner for such


amount of actual damages as may be proven; P1,000,000.00 in moral
damages; P300,000.00 in exemplary damages; and P150,000.00 in
attorneysfees.
Findingforprivaterespondent,thetrialcourtrenderedaDecisiondated
July23,1991,9thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,plaintiffs complaintshouldbe,asitis
hereby,DISMISSED.TheWritofinjunctionissuedinconnectionwiththecaseis
herebyorderedDISSOLVED.
The Letters Patent No, 14561 issued by the then Philippine Patents Office is
herebydeclarednullandvoid forbeinginviolationofSections7,9and15ofthe
PatentsLaw.
PursuanttoSec.46ofthePatentsLaw,theDirectorofBureauofPatentsishereby
directedtocancelLettersPatentNo.14561issuedtotheplaintiffandtopublishsuch
cancellationintheOfficialGazette.
Defendant Tryco PharmaceuticalCorporation ishereby awardedP330,000.00
actualdamagesandP100,000.00attorneysfeesasprayedforinitscounterclaimbut
saidamountawardedtodefendantissubjecttothelienoncorrectpaymentoffiling
fees.
SOORDERED.(Italicssupplied)

Onappeal,theCourtofAppeals,byDecisionofApril21,1995, 10upheld
the trial courts finding that private respondent was not liable for any
infringementofthepatentofpetitionerinlightofthelattersfailureto
showthatAlbendazoleisthesameasthecompoundsubjectofLetters
PatentNo.14561.Notingpetitionersadmissionoftheissuancebythe
U.S.ofapatentforAlbendazoleinthenameofSmithKlineandFrench
Laboratorieswhichwaspetitionersformercorporatename,theappellate
courtconsideredtheU.S.patentasimplyingthatAlbendazoleisdifferent
frommethyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamate.Itlikewisefound
that private respondent was not guilty of deceiving the public by
misrepresentingthatImpregonisitsproduct.
Theappellatecourt,however,declaredthatLettersPatentNo.14561
was not void as it sustained petitioners explanation that Patent
ApplicationSerialNo.18989whichwasfiledonOctober8,1976wasa
divisionalapplicationofPatentApplicationSerialNo.
_______________
9Recordsatpp.454462.
10CourtofAppealsRolloatpp.97107.

VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003

37
37

SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

17280filedonJune17,1975withthePhilippinePatentOffice,wellwithin
one year from petitioners filing on June 19, 1974 of its Foreign
Application Priority Data No. 480,646 in the U.S. covering the same
compoundsubjectofPatentApplicationSerialNo.17280.
ApplyingSection17ofthePatentLaw,theCourtofAppealsthusruled
thatPatentApplicationSerialNo.18989wasdeemedfiledonJune17,
1995orstillwithinoneyearfromthefilingofapatentapplicationabroad
incompliancewiththeoneyearruleunderSection15ofthePatentLaw.
AnditrejectedthesubmissionthatthecompoundinLettersPatentNo.
14561 was not patentable, citing the jurisprudentially established
presumption that the Patent Offices determination of patentability is
correct.Finally,itruledthatpetitionerestablisheditselftobetheoneand
thesameassigneeofthepatentnotwithstandingchangesinitscorporate
name.Thustheappellatecourtdisposed:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the


MODIFICATIONthattheordersforthenullificationofLettersPatentNo.14561
andforitscancellationaredeletedtherefrom.
SOORDERED.

PetitionersmotionforreconsiderationoftheCourtofAppealsdecision
having been denied11 the present petition for review on certiorari12 was
filed,assigningaserrorsthefollowing:
1. I.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINNOTFINDING
THATALBENDAZOLE,THEACTIVEINGREDIENTIN
TRYCOSIMPREGONDRUG,ISINCLUDEDIN
PETITIONERSLETTERSPATENTNO.14561,ANDTHAT
CONSEQUENTLYTRYCOISANSWERABLEFORPATENT
INFRINGEMENT.
2. II.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINAWARDINGTO
PRIVATERESPONDENTTRYCOPHARMACORPORATION
P330,000.00ACTUALDAMAGESANDP100,000.00
ATTORNEYSFEES.
Petitionerarguesthatunderthe doctrineofequivalents fordetermining
patent infringement, Albendazole, the active ingredient it alleges was
appropriatedbyprivaterespondentforitsdrugImpregon,issubstantially
thesameasmethyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamatecoveredbyits
patentsincebothofthem
_______________
11SupremeCourtRolloatpp.4751.
12Id,atpp.833.

38

38
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

aremeanttocombatwormorparasiteinfestationinanimals.Itcitesthe
unrebutted testimony of its witness Dr. Godofredo C. Orinion (Dr.
Orinion)thatthechemicalformulainLettersPatentNo.14561refersto
the compound Albendazole. Petitioner adds that the two substances
substantiallydothesamefunctioninsubstantiallythesamewaytoachieve

the same results, thereby making them truly identical. Petitioner thus
submits that the appellate court should have gone beyond the literal
wordingsusedinLettersPatentNo.14561,beyondmerelyapplyingthe
literalinfringementtest,forinspiteofthefactthatthewordAlbendazole
doesnotappearinpetitionersletterspatent,ithasablyshownbyevidence
itssamenesswithmethyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamate.
PetitionerlikewisepointsoutthatitsapplicationwiththePhilippine
PatentOfficeonaccountofwhichitwasgrantedLettersPatentNo.14561
was merely a divisional application of a prior application in the U. S.
whichgrantedapatentforAlbendazole.Hence,petitionerconcludesthat
both methyl 5 propylthio2benzimidazole carbamate and the U.S.
patentedAlbendazolearedependentoneachotherandmutuallycontribute
toproduceasingleresult,therebymakingAlbendazoleasmuchapartof
LettersPatentNo.14561astheothersubstanceis.
Petitioner concedes in its SurRejoinder13 that although methyl 5
propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamateisnotidenticalwithAlbendazole,
theformerisanimprovementorimprovedversionofthelatterthereby
makingbothsubstancesstillsubstantiallythesame.
With respect to the award of actual damages in favor of private
respondent in the amount of P330,000.00 representing lost profits,
petitionerassailsthesameashighlyspeculativeandconjectural,hence,
withoutbasis.ItassailstootheawardofP100,000.00inattorneysfeesas
notfallingunderanyoftheinstancesenumeratedbylawwhererecovery
ofattorneysfeesisallowed.
InitsComment,14 privaterespondentcontendsthatapplicationofthe
doctrine of equivalents would not alter the outcome of the case,
Albendazole and methyl 5 propylthio2benzimidazole carbamate being
twodifferentcompoundswithdifferentchemicalandphysicalproperties.
ItstressesthattheexistenceofaseparateU.S.
_______________
13SupremeCourtRolloatpp.119122.
14SupremeCourtRolloatpp.6684.

VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003

39
39

SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

patent for Albendazole indicates that the same and the compound in
LettersPatentNo.14561aredifferentfromeachother;andthatsinceit
wasonaccountofadivisionalapplicationthatthepatentformethyl5
propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamatewasissued,then,bydefinitionofa
divisionalapplication,suchacompoundisjustoneofseveralindependent
inventions alongside Albendazole under petitioners original patent
application.
Ashasrepeatedlybeenheld,onlyquestionsoflawmayberaisedina
petition for review on certiorari before this Court. Unless the factual
findings of the appellate court are mistaken, absurd, speculative,
conjectural,conflicting,taintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,orcontrary
tothefindingsculledbythecourtoforigin, 15thisCourtdoesnotreview
them.
From an examination of the evidence on record, this Court finds
nothing infirm in the appellate courts conclusions with respect to the
principal issue of whether private respondent committed patent
infringementtotheprejudiceofpetitioner.
Theburdenofprooftosubstantiateachargeforpatentinfringement
restsontheplaintiff.16 Inthecaseatbar,petitionersevidenceconsists
primarilyofitsLettersPatentNo.14561,andthetestimonyofDr.Orinion,
its general manager in the Philippines for its Animal Health Products
Division,bywhichitsoughttoshowthatitspatentforthecompound
methyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamatealsocoversthesubstance
Albendazole.
Fromareadingofthe9claimsofLettersPatentNo.14561inrelation
to the other portions thereof, no mention is made of the compound
Albendazole.Allthattheclaimsdiscloseare:thecoveredinvention,that
is, the compound methyl 5 propylthio2benzimidazole carbamate; the
compoundsbeinganthelminticbutnontoxicforanimalsoritsabilityto
destroy parasites without harming the host animals; and the patented
methods, compositions or preparations involving the compound to
maximizeitsefficacyagainstcertainkindsofparasitesinfectingspecified
animals.
Whenthelanguageofitsclaimsisclearanddistinct,thepatenteeis
boundtherebyandmaynotclaimanythingbeyondthem. 17Andsoarethe
courtsboundwhichmaynotaddtoordetractfrom

_______________
15Ramirezv.CourtofAppeals,294SCRA512[1998].
16Vargasv.F.M.Yaptico&Co.,40Phil.195[1919].
1769C.J.S.684.

40

40
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

the claims matters not expressed or necessarily implied, nor may they
enlargethepatentbeyondthescopeofthatwhichtheinventorclaimedand
thepatentofficeallowed,evenifthepatenteemayhavebeenentitledto
somethingmorethanthewordsithadchosenwouldinclude.18
ItbearsstressingthatthemereabsenceofthewordAlbendazolein
Letters Patent No. 14561 is not determinative of Albendazoles non
inclusionintheclaimsofthepatent.WhileAlbendazoleisadmittedlya
chemicalcompoundthatexistsbyanamedifferentfromthatcoveredin
petitionersletterspatent,thelanguageofLetterPatentNo.14561failsto
yieldanythingatallregardingAlbendazole.Andnoextrinsicevidencehad
beenadducedtoprovethatAlbendazoleinheresinpetitionerspatentin
spiteofitsomissiontherefromorthatthemeaningoftheclaimsofthe
patentembracesthesame.
Whilepetitionerconcedesthatthemereliteralwordingsofitspatent
cannotestablishprivaterespondentsinfringement,iturgesthisCourtto
applythedoctrineofequivalents.
The doctrineofequivalents providesthataninfringementalsotakes
placewhenadeviceappropriatesapriorinventionbyincorporatingits
innovative concept and, although with some modification and change,
performssubstantiallythesamefunctioninsubstantiallythesamewayto
achievesubstantiallythesameresult.19Yetagain,ascrutinyofpetitioners
evidence fails to convince this Court of the substantial sameness of
petitionerspatentedcompoundandAlbendazole.Whilebothcompounds
havetheeffectofneutralizingparasitesinanimals,identityofresultdoes
not amount to infringement of patent unless Albendazole operates in
substantially the same way or by substantially the same means as the
patented compound, even though it performs the same function and

achieves the same result.20 In other words, the principle or mode of


operationmustbethesameorsubstantiallythesame.21
_______________
1869C.J.S.684685.
19Godinesv.CourtofAppeals,226SCRA338[1993].
2060AmJur2d631632.
2169C.J.S.860.

VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003

41
41

SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

The doctrine of equivalents thus requires satisfaction of the function


meansandresulttest,thepatenteehavingtheburdentoshowthatallthree
componentsofsuchequivalencytestaremet.22
As stated early on, petitioners evidence fails to explain how
Albendazoleisineveryessentialdetailidenticaltomethyl5propylthio2
benzimidazole carbamate. Apart from the fact that Albendazole is an
anthelminticagentlikemethyl5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamate,
nothing more is asserted and accordingly substantiated regarding the
methodormeansbywhichAlbendazoleweedsoutparasitesinanimals,
thusgivingnoinformation onwhether that method is substantially the
sameasthemannerbywhichpetitionerscompoundworks.Thetestimony
ofDr.Orinionlendsnosupporttopetitionerscause,henothavingbeen
presented or qualified as an expert witness who has the knowledge or
expertiseonthematterofchemicalcompounds.
Asfortheconceptofdivisionalapplicationsprofferedbypetitioner,it
comes into play when two or more inventions are claimed in a single
applicationbutareofsuchanaturethatasinglepatentmaynotbeissued
forthem.23 Theapplicantthusisrequiredtodivide,thatis,tolimitthe
claimstowhicheverinventionhemayelect,whereasthoseinventionsnot
electedmaybemadethesubjectofseparateapplicationswhicharecalled
divisionalapplications.24Whatthisonlymeansisthatpetitionersmethyl
5propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamateisaninventiondistinctfromthe
other inventions claimed in the original application divided out,
Albendazole being one of those other inventions. Otherwise, methyl 5
propylthio2benzimidazolecarbamatewouldnothavebeenthesubjectof

adivisionalapplicationifasinglepatentcouldhavebeenissuedforitas
wellasAlbendazole.
Theforegoingdiscussionsnotwithstanding,thisCourtdoesnotsustain
the award of actual damages and attorneys fees in favor of private
respondent.TheclaimedactualdamagesofP330,000.00representinglost
profits or revenues incurred by private respondent as a result of the
issuanceoftheinjunctionagainstit,computedattherateof30%ofits
alleged P100,000.00 monthly gross sales for eleven months, were
supportedbythetestimoniesofpri
_______________
22Maltav.SchulmerichCarillons,Inc.,13U.S.P.Q.2d1900[1989].
2369C.J.S.455.
24Ibid.

42

42
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
SmithKlineBeckmanCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals

vate respondents President25 and Executive VicePresident that the


average monthly sale of Impregon was P100,000.00 and that sales
plummeted to zero after the issuance of the injunction.26 While
indemnificationforactualorcompensatorydamagescoversnotonlythe
losssuffered(damnumemergens)butalsoprofitswhichtheobligeefailed
toobtain(lucrumcessansorganaciasfrustradas),itisnecessarytoprove
theactualamountofdamageswithareasonabledegreeofcertaintybased
oncompetentproofandonthebestevidenceobtainablebytheinjured
party.27 The testimonies of private respondents officers are not the
competentprooforbestevidenceobtainabletoestablishitsrighttoactual
orcompensatorydamagesforsuchdamagesalsorequirepresentationof
documentaryevidencetosubstantiateaclaimtherefor.28
Inthesamevein,thisCourtdoesnotsustainthegrantbytheappellate
courtofattorneysfeestoprivaterespondentanchoredonArticle2208(2)
of the Civil Code, private respondent having been allegedly forced to
litigateasaresultofpetitionerssuit.Evenifaclaimantiscompelledto
litigatewiththirdpersonsortoincurexpensestoprotectitsrights,still
attorneysfeesmaynotbeawardedwherenosufficientshowingofbad
faithcouldbereflectedinapartyspersistenceinacaseotherthanan

erroneousconvictionoftherighteousnessofhiscause.29 Thereexistsno
evidenceonrecordindicatingthatpetitionerwasmovedbymaliceinsuing
privaterespondent.
ThisCourt,however,grantsprivaterespondenttemperateormoderate
damagesintheamountofP20,000.00whichitfindsreasonableunderthe
circumstances,ithavingsufferedsomepecuniarylosstheamountofwhich
cannot,fromthenatureofthecase,beestablishedwithcertainty.30
WHEREFORE,theassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsishereby
AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.Theawardofactualor
_______________
25TSN,March30,1990,pp.1516.
26TSN,May11,1990,pp.35.
27IntegratedPackagingCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,333SCRA170[2000].
28ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,365SCRA326[2001].
29ABSCBNBroadcastingCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,301SCRA572[1999].
30CivilCode,art.2224.

43
VOL.409,AUGUST14,2003
43
Laovs.StandardInsuranceCo.,Inc.

compensatorydamagesandattorneysfeestoprivaterespondent,Tryco
Pharma Corporation, is DELETED; instead, it is hereby awarded the
amountofP20,000.00astemperateormoderatedamages.
SOORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Panganiban, SandovalGutierrez andCorona,
JJ.,concur.
Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Note.Whereanunreasonableperiodoftimehadlapsedpriortothe
filing of a petition for revival of the patent application due to the
negligenceoftheapplicantscounsel,suchinactionwouldresultinthe
forfeitureoftherighttorevivethepatentapplication.(Schuartzvs.Court
ofAppeals,335SCRA493[2000])
o0o

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like