Scribd
Upload
122 views1 page

Parke Davis and Company Vs

Parke Davies owned a patent for the antibiotic chloramphenicol and declined to grant a voluntary license to Doctors' Pharmaceuticals to produce medicines containing it. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals applied for and was granted a compulsory license by the Director of Patents. Parke Davies appealed, arguing the Director erred in granting the license. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, finding patents on foods and medicines allow compulsory licenses to prevent monopolies and promote public benefit over private interests.

Uploaded by

Ladyfirst MA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views1 page

Parke Davis and Company Vs

Parke Davies owned a patent for the antibiotic chloramphenicol and declined to grant a voluntary license to Doctors' Pharmaceuticals to produce medicines containing it. Doctors' Pharmaceuticals applied for and was granted a compulsory license by the Director of Patents. Parke Davies appealed, arguing the Director erred in granting the license. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, finding patents on foods and medicines allow compulsory licenses to prevent monopolies and promote public benefit over private interests.

Uploaded by

Ladyfirst MA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PARKE DAVIS and COMPANY vs. DOCTORS' PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22221, August 31, 1965

FACTS:

Parke Davies and Company is an owner of a Patent entitled "Process for the Manufacturing of Antibiotics" (Letters
Patent No. 50) which was issued by the Philippine Patent Office on February 9, 1950. The patent relates to a
chemical compound represented by a formula commonly called chloramphenicol. The patent contains ten claims,
nine of which are process claims, and the other is a product claim to the chemical substance chloramphenicol.

Doctors’ Pharmaceuticals Inc. requested that it be granted a voluntary license to manufacture and produce our own
brand of medicine, containing chloramphenicol, and to use, sell, distribute, or otherwise dispose of the same in the
Philippines under such terms and conditions as may be deemed reasonable and mutually satisfactory, which Parke
Davies declined.

Doctors’ Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed a petition with the Director of Patents requesting the Director to grant a
compulsory license. After careful evaluation and hearings, the Director granted the request of Doctors’
Pharmaceuticals.

ISSUE:

Is the decision of the Director of Patents in granting Doctor’s Pharmaceutical Inc. compulsory license to use the
substance chloramphenicol, valid?

HELD:

Yes the decision of the Director of Patents in granting Doctor’s Pharmaceutical Inc. compulsory license to use the
substance chloramphenicol is valid. The Supreme Court says that patents issued to foods and medicines are not
exclusive so as not to prevent the building up of patent monopolies. Public benefit is foremost. The Court dismissed
the contention of Parke Davies that the Director of Patents erred in granting compulsory license. The decision
appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

You might also like