A. Virtucio was a composer of llocano songs who has been quite popular in the llocos Region. Pascuala is a professor of music in a local university with special focus on indigenous music. When she heard the musical works of Virtucio, she purchased a CD of his works. She copied the CD and sent the second copy to her Music instructions for the class to listen to the CD and analyze the works of Virtucio.
Did Pascuala thereby infringe Virtucio’s copyright? Explain your answer. (4%)
B. Super Biology Corporation (Super Biology) invented and patented a miracle medicine for the cure of AIDS. Being the sole manufacturer, Super Biology sold the medicine at an exorbitant price. Because of the sudden prevalence of AIDS cases in Metro Manila and other urban areas, the Department of Health (DOH) asked Super Biology for a license to produce and sell the AIDS medicine to the public at a substantially lower price. Super Biology, citing the huge costs and expenses incurred for research and development, refused.
Assuming you are asked your opinion as the legal consultant of the DOH, discuss how you will resolve the matter. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
For Question A, Pascuala did not infringe Virtucio's copyright. For Question B, the DOH should file a petition for a compulsory license with the Intellectual Property Office. Under Section 185 of RA 8293, the fair use
Unlock the full Commercial and Tax Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code, what constitutes non-infringing fair use of a copyrighted work?
Section 185 explicitly protects fair use for teaching, scholarship, research, and classroom instruction from copyright infringement.
Under Section 93 of Republic Act Number 8293, under what condition may the Intellectual Property Office grant a compulsory patent license?
Section 93 authorizes compulsory licensing when public health, national security, or extreme public urgency so requires.
Why is Professor Pascuala not liable for copyright infringement when she copied Virtucio's CD for her music class?
Pascuala's copying for classroom analysis and teaching falls squarely within the statutory fair use exception.
What legal action should the Department of Health take to address Super Biology Corporation's exorbitant pricing of patented AIDS medicine?
Choices available with full access.
Which primary statute governs copyrights, patents, fair use, and compulsory licensing in the Philippines?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Copyright Fair Use
Under Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act Number 8293), the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, factors such as the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect upon the potential market are considered. Educational, non-profit copying for classroom analysis qualifies as non-infringing fair use.
2. Compulsory Patent License
Under Section 93 of Republic Act Number 8293, as amended, the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office may grant a compulsory license to exploit a patented invention without the agreement of the patent owner under specified statutory circumstances. Compulsory licensing is authorized when a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency exist, or where public interest, particularly national security, nutrition, health, or the development of other vital sectors so requires. The patent owner receives reasonable remuneration, but cannot block the government from licensing the life-saving medicine to address a public health crisis.
3. Government Patent Use
Under Section 74 of Republic Act Number 8293, a government agency or third person authorized by the government may exploit a patented invention even without agreement of the patent owner where the public interest, particularly national security, nutrition, health, or the development of other vital sectors so requires. In cases of public health necessity, the Department of Health may petition the Intellectual Property Office for government use or compulsory licensing of patented pharmaceuticals to ensure public access to affordable miracle medicines during widespread health emergencies.