Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • SKB Corp vs CA and Tryco Pharma

    Uploaded by

    Anna Gabo
    69 views2 pages
    Smith Kline Beckman Corporation sued Tryco Pharma Corporation for patent infringement regarding Tryco's drug "Impregon", which contains the active ingredient Albendazole. Smith Kline claimed their patent for the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate also covered Albendazole. However, the Court of Appeals found that Smith Kline failed to prove Albendazole was included in their patent, as the language and claims of the patent did not mention Albendazole. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding Smith Kline did not meet its burden of proof to show Albendazole was substantially similar to the compound patented in order to constitute infringement.

    Original Description:

    Smith kline beckham corp. v.ca

    Original Title

    Smith kline beckham corp. v.ca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Smith Kline Beckman Corporation sued Tryco Pharma Corporation for patent infringement regarding Tryco's drug "Impregon", which contains the active ingredient Albendazole. Smith Kline claimed their patent for the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate also covered Albendazole. However, the Court of Appeals found that Smith Kline failed to prove Albendazole was included in their patent, as the language and claims of the patent did not mention Albendazole. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding Smith Kline did not meet its burden of proof to show Albendazole was substantially similar to the compound patented in order to constitute infringement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    69 views2 pages

    SKB Corp vs CA and Tryco Pharma

    Uploaded by

    Anna Gabo
    Smith Kline Beckman Corporation sued Tryco Pharma Corporation for patent infringement regarding Tryco's drug "Impregon", which contains the active ingredient Albendazole. Smith Kline claimed their patent for the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate also covered Albendazole. However, the Court of Appeals found that Smith Kline failed to prove Albendazole was included in their patent, as the language and claims of the patent did not mention Albendazole. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding Smith Kline did not meet its burden of proof to show Albendazole was substantially similar to the compound patented in order to constitute infringement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 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.

    You might also like