Case Digest: SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. 409 SCRA 33 (2003)

SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. 409 SCRA 33 (2003)

When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may not claim anything beyond them.

Petitioner Smith Kline Beckman Corporation (SKBC) was granted by the Philippine Patent Office Letters Patent No. 14561 over an invented compound entitled “Methods and Compositions for Producing Biphasic Parasiticide Activity Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole Carbamate.” Such compound is claimed to be an active ingredient in fighting various parasites in certain types of domestic and livestock animals. Respondent Tryco Pharma (Tryco) sells veterinary products including a drug Impregon which contains Albendazole as an active ingredient which fights against parasites in animals. Petitioner SKBC then filed an action against respondent Tryco for patent infringement claiming that the patent granted to them includes said Albendazole. In their defense respondent Tryco alleges that Letters Patent No. 14561 granted to petitioner SKBC does not include Albendazole for nowhere is such word found in the patent. The Trial Court rendered its decision in favor of respondent Tryco which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Albendazole is included in petitioners Letter Pattent No. 14561 

HELD:

From an examination of the evidence on record, the Court finds nothing infirm in the appellate court’s conclusions with respect to the principal issue of whether Tycho Pharma committed patent infringement to the prejudice of SKBC. The burden of proof to substantiate a charge for patent infringement rests on the plaintiff. In the case at bar, petitioner’s evidence consists primarily of its Letters Patent No. 14561, and the testimony of Dr. Orinion, its general manager in the Philippines for its Animal Health Products Division, by which it sought to show that its patent for the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2- benzimidazole carbamate also covers the substance Albendazole. From a reading of the 9 claims of Letters Patent No. 14561 in relation to the other portions thereof, no mention is made of the compound Albendazole.

When the language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may not claim anything beyond them. And so are the courts bound which may not add to or detract from the claims matters not expressed or necessarily implied, nor may they enlarge the patent beyond the scope of that which the inventor claimed and the patent office allowed, even if the patentee may have been entitled to something more than the words it had chosen would include. It bears stressing that the mere absence of the word Albendazole in Letters Patent No. 14561 is not determinative of Albendazole’s non-inclusion in the claims of the patent. While Albendazole is admittedly a chemical compound that exists by a name different from that covered in SKBC’s letters patent, the language of Letter Patent No. 14561 fails to yield anything at all regarding Albendazole. And no extrinsic evidence had been adduced to prove that Albendazole inheres in SKBC’s patent in spite of its omission therefrom or that the meaning of the claims of the patent embraces the same. While SKBC concedes that the mere literal wordings of its patent cannot establish Tyco Pharma’s infringement, it urges the Court to apply the doctrine of equivalents.

The doctrine of equivalents provides that an infringement also takes place when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, although with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. Yet again, a scrutiny of SKBC’s evidence fails to convince the Court of the substantial sameness of SKBC’s patented compound and Albendazole. While both compounds have the effect of neutralizing parasites in animals, identity of result does 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.

In other words, the principle or mode of operation must be the same or substantially the same. The doctrine of equivalents thus requires satisfaction of the function-means-and-result test, the patentee having the burden to show that all three components of such equivalency test are met.