G.R. No. L-47711-12 July 31, 1978
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM GMBH, Assignee of Johannes Keck, petitioner-appellant, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF THE PHILIPPINE PATENT OFFICE and UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., respondent-appellees.

FACTS

Respondent United Laboratories, Inc. filed a Petition for Compulsory Licensing with the Patent Office for a license to manufacture a patented pharmaceutical compound. During pre-trial, petitioner Boehringer Ingelheim, the patentee, orally moved to have United declared non-suited, questioning the validity of the special power of attorney submitted by United’s counsel. The Hearing Officer denied this motion. Boehringer then filed a formal motion to dismiss and/or an appeal to the Director of Patents, arguing the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction to rule on such a motion, as his role was merely to receive arguments for transmittal to the Director.
The Director of Patents denied Boehringer’s motion, finding the President of United was authorized to sign the special power of attorney under the corporate by-laws. Boehringer’s motion for reconsideration, which contended the Director failed to address the jurisdictional issue concerning the Hearing Officer’s authority, was also denied. Subsequently, Boehringer appealed these Patent Office orders to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Boehringer’s appeals from the interlocutory orders of the Director of Patents.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appealed orders were interlocutory and not appealable. The legal logic rests on the established principle that interlocutory orders, which do not dispose of a case on the merits but merely resolve incidental matters, are not subject to immediate appeal. Allowing such appeals would result in undue delay and piecemeal litigation.
The Court clarified the jurisdictional scope of Hearing Officers in inter partes proceedings. Citing American Tobacco Co. vs. Director of Patents, it held that while the Director of Patents is authorized to designate Hearing Officers, their authority is limited to making preliminary rulings. The ultimate decision on all issues, including motions to dismiss, remains with the Director. In this case, the Hearing Officer’s denial of the oral motion to declare non-suited was a preliminary ruling, which Boehringer was properly allowed to appeal to the Director. The Director’s subsequent order denying the formal motion to dismiss was a valid exercise of his adjudicatory power. Since the compulsory licensing case was still pending on the merits, the orders in question were merely interlocutory steps within that proceeding.
The Supreme Court further noted that the petition appeared to be a dilatory tactic, as the substantive issue of compulsory licensing remained unresolved. Judicial policy disfavors appeals from interlocutory orders to prevent unnecessary delays in the administration of justice. The proper recourse for Boehringer was to await the final decision of the Director of Patents on the main petition before elevating any alleged errors for review. Consequently, the petition was denied for lack of merit.