When Can the Government Force You to License Your Patent?

G.R. No. 121867, July 24, 1997, SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DOCTORS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. RESPONDENTS.

Imagine investing years and millions of pesos into developing a life-saving drug, only to be told that another company can manufacture and sell it too. This is the reality of compulsory licensing, a legal mechanism that allows the government to authorize third parties to use a patented invention without the patent holder’s consent. While it might seem unfair, it’s a tool designed to balance the rights of inventors with the needs of public health and economic development. The case of Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals delves into the complexities of this system, specifically concerning pharmaceutical patents in the Philippines. The central question: Under what circumstances can the government compel a patent holder to license their invention to another party?

Understanding Compulsory Licensing in the Philippines

Compulsory licensing is governed primarily by Republic Act No. 165, also known as the Patent Law, as amended. Section 34 of this law outlines the grounds for compulsory licensing, providing a framework for when the government can step in and override a patent holder’s exclusive rights.

Several key legal principles underpin the concept of compulsory licensing:

• Public Interest: The overriding principle is that the public’s welfare takes precedence over individual patent rights.
• Abuse Prevention: Compulsory licensing aims to prevent patent holders from abusing their monopoly power, such as by failing to work the patent or charging exorbitant prices.
• Economic Development: It promotes the development of local industries by allowing them to utilize patented inventions, particularly in sectors like medicine and food.

Section 34 of R.A. No. 165 explicitly states the grounds for compulsory licensing:

“SEC. 34. Grounds for Compulsory Licensing. — (1) Any person may apply to the Director for the grant of a license under a particular patent at any time after the expiration of two years from the date of the grant of the patent, under any of the following circumstances:
(e) If the patented invention or article relates to food or medicine or manufactured products or substances which can be used as food or medicine, or is necessary for public health or public safety.”

This provision is particularly relevant to the Smith Kline case, as it directly addresses patents related to medicine. The law balances patent protection and public access to essential goods like medicine.

The Smith Kline Case: A Battle Over Cimetidine

The story begins with Smith Kline & French Laboratories, a foreign corporation that held a Philippine patent for Cimetidine, a drug used to treat ulcers. Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a local pharmaceutical company, sought a compulsory license to manufacture its own version of the drug. This request was based on the argument that Cimetidine was a medicine necessary for public health, and thus subject to compulsory licensing under R.A. No. 165.

Smith Kline opposed the petition, arguing that Doctors Pharmaceuticals lacked the capability to properly manufacture the drug and that granting the license would violate international law and constitute an invalid exercise of police power. They also challenged the royalty rate set by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT).

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey:

1. BPTTT Decision: The BPTTT granted Doctors Pharmaceuticals a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to manufacture, use, and sell Cimetidine in the Philippines, subject to a 2.5% royalty on net sales.
2. Court of Appeals Appeal: Smith Kline appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the BPTTT’s decision violated international law, constituted an invalid exercise of police power, and amounted to expropriation without just compensation.
3. Supreme Court Review: The Court of Appeals affirmed the BPTTT’s decision, prompting Smith Kline to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decision to grant the compulsory license. The Court reasoned that R.A. No. 165 was consistent with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which allows member countries to implement compulsory licensing to prevent abuses of patent rights. The Court also emphasized the importance of public access to medicine and the government’s police power to promote public health.

Key quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision:

“It is thus clear that Section A(2) of Article 5 above unequivocally and explicitly respects the right of member countries to adopt legislative measures to provide for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent.”

“[T]he legislative intent in the grant of a compulsory license was not only to afford others an opportunity to provide the public with the quantity of the patented product, but also to prevent the growth of monopolies.”

What This Means for Patent Holders and the Public

The Smith Kline case reaffirms the Philippine government’s power to grant compulsory licenses for pharmaceutical patents when it serves the public interest. This decision has significant implications for both patent holders and the public:

• Reduced Monopoly Power: Pharmaceutical companies must be aware that their patent rights are not absolute and can be limited in the interest of public health.
• Increased Access to Medicine: The decision can lead to lower drug prices and greater availability of essential medicines.
• Local Industry Development: It encourages the growth of local pharmaceutical companies by allowing them to manufacture and sell patented drugs under license.

Key Lessons

• Understand the Limits of Patent Protection: Patent rights are not absolute and can be subject to compulsory licensing under certain circumstances.
• Be Prepared to Justify Pricing and Availability: Patent holders must be able to demonstrate that they are meeting the public’s needs for their patented products at reasonable prices.
• Comply with Philippine Laws and Regulations: Foreign patent holders must be aware of and comply with Philippine laws governing patents and compulsory licensing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a compulsory license?

A: A compulsory license is a government authorization that allows a third party to use a patented invention without the patent holder’s consent, typically in exchange for a royalty payment.

Q: When can a compulsory license be granted in the Philippines?

A: Under R.A. No. 165, a compulsory license can be granted after two years from the date of the patent grant if the patented invention is not being worked in the Philippines, the demand for the patented article is not being met, or if the invention relates to food or medicine and is necessary for public health.

Q: How much royalty is typically paid to the patent holder in a compulsory licensing situation?

A: The royalty rate is determined by the Director of Patents, but it cannot exceed 5% of the net wholesale price of the products manufactured under the license. In the Smith Kline case, the royalty rate was set at 2.5%.

Q: Can a compulsory license be transferred to another company?

A: No, compulsory licenses are generally non-transferable, meaning the licensee cannot assign or sublicense the license to another party.

Q: What if the patent holder believes the royalty rate is too low?

A: The patent holder can petition the Director of Patents for an increase in the royalty rate if local sales of the licensed product increase.

Q: Does the Philippines follow international laws on compulsory licensing?

A: Yes, the Philippine Patent Law is consistent with international agreements like the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which allows member countries to grant compulsory licenses under certain conditions.

ASG Law specializes in intellectual property law and patent litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.