G.R. No. 167715 - Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. vs. Pfizer, Inc.

Pfizer, Inc. and Pfizer (Phil.) Inc. (respondents) are the registered owners of Philippine Letters Patent No. 21116, issued July 16, 1987, valid until July 16, 2004. The patent claims a method of increasing the effectiveness of a beta-lactam antibiotic by co-administering a compound of formula IA. It specifically covers the combination of ampicillin sodium and sulbactam sodium, marketed under the brand name “Unasyn,” with Zuellig Pharma Corporation as its exclusive distributor in the Philippines.
Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. (petitioner) submitted bids in January–February 2003 to supply Sulbactam Ampicillin to various hospitals without respondents’ consent, alleged to infringe the patent.

Respondents filed a complaint for patent infringement with the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office (BLA-IPO), praying for a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, damages, and forfeiture of infringing products.
On July 15, 2003, the BLA-IPO issued a 90-day preliminary injunction. Motions to extend were denied on October 15, 2003 and January 23, 2004. Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge those denials and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction.

While the CA petition was pending, respondents filed Civil Case No. 04-754 for patent infringement and unfair competition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 138, seeking TRO, preliminary injunction, damages, and permanent relief.
The RTC issued a TRO on August 24, 2004 (conditioned on bond) and a writ of preliminary injunction on April 6, 2005, restraining petitioner from importing, distributing, or selling Sulbactam Ampicillin.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the CA petition for forum shopping (filed November 16, 2004). The CA issued a Resolution on January 18, 2005 approving respondents’ bond and a TRO on the same date.
Petitioner filed motions to dismiss as moot (February 7, 2005) due to patent expiry and for lack of CA jurisdiction over IPO orders. On April 11, 2005, the CA denied both motions.

Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the CA Resolutions of January 18 and April 11, 2005.
The petition raises three issues: injunction after patent lapse; proper appellate tribunal for BLA-IPO orders; and forum shopping.

Whether injunctive relief may be issued for patent infringement when the patent has already expired.
Which tribunal has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Director of Legal Affairs of the Intellectual Property Office.
Whether respondents committed forum shopping by filing separate actions before the IPO and the RTC seeking the same relief.