INTELLECTUAL CREATION (2004)

Dr. ALX is a scientist honored for work related to the human genome project. Among his pioneering efforts
concern stem cell research for the cure of Alzheimer’s disease. Under corporate sponsorship, he helped
develop a microbe that ate and digested oil spills in the sea. Now he leads a college team for cancer research
in MSS State. The team has experimented on a mouse whose body cells replicate and bear cancerous tumor.
Called ―oncomouse, it is a life-form useful for medical research and it is a novel creation. Its body cells
do not naturally occur in nature but are the product of man’s intellect, industry and ingenuity. However,
there is a doubt whether local property laws and ethics would allow rights of exclusive ownership on any
life-form. Dr. ALX needs your advice:

a. Whether the reciprocity principle private international law could applied in our jurisdiction; and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The reciprocity principle in private international law may be applied in our jurisdiction. Section 3 of R.A.
8293, the Intellectual Property Code, provides for reciprocity, as follows: "Any person who is a national,
or who is domiciled, or has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any
convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual

property rights or the repression of unfair competition, to which the Philippines is also a party, or extends
reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines by law, shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary
to give effect to any provision of such convention, treaty or reciprocal law, in addition to the rights to which
any owner of an intellectual property right is otherwise entitled by this Act. (n)" To illustrate: the Philippines
may refrain from imposing a requirement of local incorporation or establishment of a local domicile for the
protection of industrial property rights of foreign nationals (citizens of Canada, Switzerland, U.S.) if the
countries of said foreign nationals refrain from imposing said requirement on Filipino citizens.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Reciprocity principle cannot be applied in our jurisdiction because the Philippines is a party to the TRIPS
agreement and the WTO. The principle involved is the most-favored nation clause which is the principle of
non-discrimination. The protection afforded to intellectual property protection in the Philippines also
applies to other members of the WTO. Thus, it is not really reciprocity principle in private international law
that applies, but the most-favored nation clause under public international law.

b. Whether there are legal and ethical reasons that could frustrate his claim of exclusive ownership over the
life-form called ―oncomouse‖ in Manila? What will be your advice to him? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There is no legal reason why "oncomouse" cannot be protected under the law. Among those excluded from
patent protection are "plant varieties or animal breeds, or essentially biological process for the production
of plants and animals" (Section 22.4 Intellectual Property Code, R.A. No. 8293). The "oncomouse" in the
problem is not an essentially biological process for the production of animals. It is a real invention because
its body cells do not naturally occur