Life Sciences and Pharma IP 2026

PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Mark Leo Bejemino, Maria Patricia Cruz and Edward King Chua, Villaraza & Angangco

of the case from which the order granting or deny ‑ ing the preliminary injunction arose. The decision of the Court of Appeals may then be appealed to the Supreme Court within 15 days from receipt thereof; this period is extendible by 30 days. If a decision on the main action, whether on the infringement or validity, was issued by the Adjudica ‑ tion Officer, a party has 15 days (extendible by 15 days) from receipt to appeal the decision before the Director of Legal Affairs. The decision of the Director of Legal Affairs may then be appealed to the Office of the Director General (ODG) of the IPOPHL within 30 days (extendible by 15 days) from receipt of the decision. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals’ deci ‑ sion may be appealed to the Supreme Court within 15 days from receipt thereof, extendible by 30 days. The Supreme Court’s decision is final and is not sub ‑ ject to further appeal. Generally, appeals are not de novo; new evidence or arguments are typically not entertained. Up to the Court of Appeals, parties may still raise factual issues and challenge the factual find ‑ ings of the lower court, in addition to legal arguments. However, in the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts, only questions of law may be raised. If the decision granting injunction is overturned on appeal, the injunction will be revoked, lifted or dis ‑ solved upon the finality of the decision and upon motion to the court of origin. However, the mere fact that the patent subject of the controversy becomes invalid does not affect the validity of the injunction. In such cases, the injunction remains in force until the tribunal or court that issued it specifically rules on its continued effect. 7.2 Appeal Court(s) Arbiter Patent litigation appeals from administrative deci ‑ sions of the IPOPHL are first decided by the Direc ‑ tor General, who reviews the record and arguments without forming a panel of judges. Further appeals may be taken to the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court, where decisions are rendered by regular appellate judges, not specialised patent judges, although technical experts may be consulted as needed.

In both civil and criminal patent litigation, appeals fol ‑ low the same hierarchy: decisions of the Regional Trial Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals and, on questions of law, to the Supreme Court. Appellate courts generally review the trial record and legal argu ‑ ments, and the matter is typically not heard de novo, except for limited factual questions as allowed by law. 7.3 Special Provisions In 2020, the Supreme Court issued the Rules of Pro ‑ cedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases. These rules apply only to proceedings before the trial courts designated as Special Commercial Courts when han ‑ dling intellectual property rights cases. Cases before the IPOPHL continue to be governed by the IP Code and the relevant rules of procedure before the Bureau of Legal Affairs or the ODG of the IPOPHL. 8. Other Relevant Forums/Procedures 8.1 The UPC or Other Forums Aside from court litigation and IPOPHL administrative proceedings, other relevant forums and procedures for life sciences and pharmaceutical IP enforcement include: • border enforcement actions before the Bureau of Customs, where rights holders may record their IP rights and request the detention or seizure of suspected infringing or counterfeit pharmaceutical products; and • regulatory actions before the Philippine Food and Drug Administration against unauthorised or unsafe products. As the Philippines does not have a specialised forum equivalent to the US International Trade Commission, a customs enforcement is administrative in nature. The EU’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) has no direct effect on Philippine patent litigation, as the Philippines is not part of the EU patent system; while UPC juris ‑ prudence may be of persuasive interest in Philippine jurisdiction, it has no binding impact on IP enforce ‑ ment or litigation.

172 CHAMBERS.COM

Powered by