CASE DIGEST: Parke Davis vs.

Doctors
Pharmaceuticals
PARKE DAVIS and COMPANY vs. DOCTORS' PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., ET AL. 

G.R. No. L-22221, August 31, 1965

FACTS:

Parke Davies and Company is an owner of a Patent entitled "Process for

the Manufacturing of Antibiotics" (Letters Patent No. 50) 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.

Doctors’ Pharmaceuticals Inc. requested that it be granted a voluntary

license to manufacture and produce our 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, which Parke Davies
declined.

Doctors’ Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a petition with the Director of Patents

requesting the Director to grant a compulsory license. After careful
evaluation and hearings, the Director granted the request of Doctors’
Pharmaceuticals.

ISSUE:

Is the decision of the Director of Patents in granting Doctor’s

Pharmaceutical Inc. compulsory license to use the substance
chloramphenicol, valid?

HELD:
Yes the decision of the Director of Patents in granting Doctor’s
Pharmaceutical Inc. compulsory license to use the substance
chloramphenicol is valid. The Supreme Court says that patents issued to
foods and medicines are not exclusive so as not to prevent the building up
of patent monopolies. Public benefit is foremost. The Court dismissed the
contention of Parke Davies that the Director of Patents erred in granting
compulsory license. The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against petitioner.