Identical terms and conditions had been prescribed for the grant of compulsory license in a good number of patent cases (United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Boehringer Ingelhelm, GMBH, IPC 929, July 27, 1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Bristol-Myers Company, IPC 1179, Aug. 20, 1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., IPC 1349, Sept. 30, 1981; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Helmut Weber, et al., IPC 949, Dec. 13,1982; Oceanic Pharmacal Inc. vs. Gruppo Lepetit S.A. IPC 1549, Dec. 21, 1982; United Laboratories. Inc. vs. Boehringer Ingelheim, IPC 1185, June 8, 1983; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Pfizer Corp., IPC 1184, June 10,, 1983; Doctors Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Maggi, et al., July 11, 1983; Drugmaker’s Laboratories v. Herningen et al., IPC 1679, September 22,1983; Superior Pharmacraft Inc. vs. Maggi, et al., IPC 1759, January 10, 1984; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Van Gelder et al., IPC 1627, June 29, 1984; Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc. vs. Janssen Pharmaceutical N.V. IPC 1555, August 27,1984; United Laboratories Inc. vs. Graham John Durant et al., IPC 1731, August 14, 1987; United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Albert Anthony Carr, IPC 1906, August 31, 1987).
The Director’s finding that UNILAB has the capability to use the patented compound in the manufacture of an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical preparation is a factual finding which is supported by substantial evidence, hence, the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error in affirming it (Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. vs. Standard Brands, Inc., 65 SCRA 575; Sy Ching vs. Gaw Liu 44 SCRA 143; De Gala Sison vs. Manalo, 8 SCRA 595; Goduco vs. Court of Appeals, 14 SCRA 282; Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the P.I., 19 SCRA 289. Of indubitable relevance to this point is the evidence that UNILAB has been engaged in the business of manufacturing drugs and pharmaceutical products for the past thirty (30) years, that it is the leading drug manufacturer in the country, that it has the necessary equipment and technological expertise for the development of solid dosage forms or for tablet, capsule, and liquid preparations, and that it maintains standards and procedures to ensure the quality of its products. Even if it were true, as alleged by the patentee (although it is denied by UNILAB), that its capability to use the patented compound was only acquired after the petition for compulsory licensing had been filed, the important thing is that such capability was proven to exist during the hearing of the petition.
The patented invention in this case relates to medicine and is necessary for public health as it can be used as component in the manufacture of anti-ulcer medicine. The Director of Patents did not err in granting a compulsory license over the entire patented invention for there is no law requiring that the license be limited to a specific embodiment of the invention, or, to a particular claim. The invention in this case relates to new aminoalkyl derivatives which have histamine H blocking activity, having the general formula (I) and physiologically acceptable salts, Noxides and dehydrates thereof. The compound ranitidine hydrochloride named in Claim 45 is also covered by General Claim I and several other sub-generic claims. Therefore, a license for Claim 45 alone would not be fully comprehensive. In any event, since the petitioner will be paid royalties on the sales of any products the licensee may manufacture using any or all of the patented compounds, the petitioner cannot complain of a deprivation of property rights without just compensation ((Barry John Price, John Watson CLITHERON and John Bradshaw, assignors to Allen & Hanburys Ltd.’ Vs. United Laboratories, Inc. (or UNILAB), G.R. No. 82542 September 29, 1988).