CASE # 01 (by: G.

Remo)
SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and TRYCO PHARMA CORPORATION
G. R. No. 126627. August 14, 2003
CARPIO-MORALES, J:
DOCTRINE: 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 petitioners evidence fails to convince this Court of the
substantial sameness of petitioners 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-andresult test, the patentee having the burden to show that all three components of such
equivalency test are met
FACTS:
Smith Kline Beckman Corporation (petitioner foreign corporation registered in
Pennsylvania) filed, as assignee, before the Philippine Patent Office an application for
patent over an invention entitled Methods and Compositions for Producing
Biphasic Parasiticide Activity Using Methyl 5 Propylthio-2-Benzimidazole
Carbamate. Letters Patent No. 14561 for the invention was issued to petitioner for a
term of seventeen (17) years. It provides in its claims that the patented invention
consisted of a new compound named methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole
carbamate and the methods or compositions utilizing the compound as an active
ingredient in fighting infections caused by gastrointestinal parasites and lungworms in
animals such as swine, sheep, cattle, goats, horses, and even pet animals.
Tryco Pharma Corporation (private respondent) is a domestic corporation that
manufactures, distributes and sells veterinary products including Impregon, a
drug that has Albendazole for its active ingredient and is claimed to be effective
against gastro-intestinal roundworms, lungworms, tapeworms and fluke infestation in
carabaos, cattle and goats.

Smith Kline sued Tryco for infringement of patent and unfair competition claiming that
its patent covers or includes the substance Albendazole such that Tryco by
manufacturing, selling, using, and causing to be sold and used the drug Impregon
without its authorization, infringed Claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Letters Patent No.
14561 as well as committed unfair competition under Article 189, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code and Section 29 of Republic Act No. 166 (The Trademark
Law) for advertising and selling as its own the drug Impregon although the
same contained petitioners patented Albendazole.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Tryco. This decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals ruling that Tryco is not liable for any infringement of the patent of
Smith Kline for failure to show that Albendazole is the same as Methyl 5 propylthio-2benzimidazole carbamate
Smith Kline submitted the following arguments:
First it argues that under the doctrine of equivalents Albendazole is
substantially the same as Methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate
since both of them are meant to combat worm or parasite infestation in
animals. It cites the unrebutted testimony of its witness Dr. Godofredo C.
Orinion (Dr. Orinion) that the chemical formula in Letters Patent No. 14561
refers to the compound Albendazole.
Second, the two substances substantially do the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve the same results, thereby making
them truly identical.
Third its application with the Philippine Patent Office was merely a divisional
application of a prior application in the U. S. which granted a patent for
Albendazole. Hence, petitioner concludes that both methyl 5 propylthio-2benzimidazole carbamate and the U.S.-patented Albendazole are dependent
on each other and mutually contribute to produce a single result, thereby
making Albendazole as much a part of Letters Patent No. 14561.
Tryco, on the other hand argued that the existence of a separate U.S. patent for
Albendazole indicates that the same and the compound in Letters Patent No. 14561
are different from each other; and that since it was on account of a divisional
application that the patent for methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate was
issued, then, by definition of a divisional application, such a compound is just one of
several independent inventions alongside Albendazole under petitioners original
patent application.
ISSUE: Applying the doctrine of equivalents, is Albendazole considered to be
included in Smith Klines Letters Patent No. 14561 such that the sale by Tryco of
Impregon (a drug that has Albendazole) made it liable for patent infringement?

HELD: No. Smith Kline failed to prove that Albendazole is a compound inherent in the
patented invention. Nowhere in the patent is the word Albendazole found. When the
language of its claims is clear and distinct, the patentee is bound thereby and may
not claim anything beyond them. Further, there was a separate patent for
Albendazole given by the US which implies that Albendazole is indeed separate and
distinct from the patented compound here.

A scrutiny of Smith Klines evidence fails to prove the substantial sameness of the
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-meansand-result test, the patentee having the burden to show that all three
components of such equivalency test are met.