E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Francisco

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co. v. Francisco, G.R. No.
174379, August 31, 2016
DOCTRINE: A patent is granted to provide rights and protection to the inventor after an invention is
disclosed to the public. It also seeks to restrain and prevent unauthorized persons from unjustly profiting
from a protected invention. However, ideas not covered by a patent are free for the public to use and
exploit. Thus, there are procedural rules on the application and grant of patents established to protect
against any infringement. To balance the public interests involved, failure to comply with strict procedural
rules will result in the failure to obtain a patent.
FACTS: On July 10, 1987, E.I. Dupont Nemours filed Philippine Patent Application No. 35526 before the
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer. The application was for Angiotensin II
Receptor Blocking Imidazole (losartan), an invention related to the treatment of hypertension and
congestive heart failure. The patent application was handled by Atty. Nicanor D. Mapili , a local resident
agent who handled a majority of E.I. Dupont Nemours' patent applications in the Philippines from 1972 to
1996. On December 19, 2000, E.I. Dupont Nemours’ new counsel, Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio,
Calma, and Carbonell, made a request to the IPO to act on Philippine Patent Application No. 35526 to
which the latter informed them that the appointed attorney on record was the late Atty. Nicanor D. Mapili
and that the reconstituted documents provided no official revocation of his Power of Attorney and the
appointment of the new applicant is required. On May 29, 2002, Petitioner submitted a Power of Attorney
executed by Miriam Meconnahey, authorizing Ortega, Castillo, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma, and
Carbonell to prosecute and handle its patent applications and also filed a Petition for Revival with Cost of
Philippine Patent Application No. 35526. They argued that Atty. Makapili did not inform them of the
abandonment of their application, that the petitioner was not aware that its agent had already died. On
April 18, 2002, the Director of Patents denied the Petition for Revival for having been filed out of time. The
CA rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner and granted it some relief from the gross negligence of
its former lawyer. The OSG moved for reconsideration and in the interim, Therapharma, Inc. moved for
leave to intervene. Therapharma, Inc. alleged that on January 4, 2003, it filed before the Bureau of Food
and Drugs its own application for a losartan product “Lifezar,” a medication for hypertension, which the
Bureau granted. CA granted the motion to intervene by Therapharma, Inc. and reversed its former own
decision.
ISSUE: W/N the patent application of losartan by Dupont should be revived.
HELD: No. Although it was in the petitioner’s discretion as a foreign client to put its complete trust and
confidence on its local resident agent, there was a correlative duty on its part to be diligent in keeping
itself updated on the progress of its patent applications. Its failure to be informed of the abandonment of
its patent application was caused by its own lack of prudence. Petitioner issued a Power of Attorney and
Appointment of Resident Agent in favor of Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo on March 25, 1996 but it only
requested a status update of Philippine Patent Application No. 35526 on December 14, 2000 or four (4)
years after it learned of Atty. Mapili’s death. Since it appears from the Intellectual Property Office’s
records that a notice of abandonment was mailed to the petitioner's resident agent on July 19, 1988, the
time for taking action is counted from this period. Public interest will be prejudiced if, despite petitioner's
inexcusable negligence, its Petition for Revival is granted. Even without a pending patent application and
the absence of any exception to extend the period for revival, petitioner was already threatening to pursue
legal action against respondent Therapharma, Inc. if it continued to develop and market its losartan
product, Lifezar. Once the petitioner is granted a patent for its losartan products, Cozaar and Hyzaar, the
loss of competition in the market for losartan products may result in higher prices. For the protection of
public interest, Philippine Patent Application No. 35526 should be considered a forfeited patent
application.

E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Francisco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Francisco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. v. Francisco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co. v. Francisco, G.R. No.

174379, August 31, 2016

ISSUE: W/N the patent application of losartan by Dupont should be revived.

You might also like