Philippine practice guide to patent law 2026

In the Philippines, three major laws affect patents.

1. 1. Republic Act No.8293, the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code), which took effect in 1998, created the modernised Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), shifted the Philippines to a first-to-file system, and established clearer standards for patentability, such as novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability.
   2. Republic Act No.9502 (Cheaper Medicines Act of 2008), which amended the IP Code, allowed parallel importation of genuine, patented medicines from other countries where they are sold at a lower price by the patent owner, or with its consent, and tightened the rules on second medical use of drugs.
   3. Republic Act No.10055 (Philippine Technology Transfer Act of 2009), which is modelled after the US Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, promoting the commercialisation of government funded research, shifting IP ownership from the government to state universities and research institutions that create the inventions, and establishing technology licensing offices with clear guidelines on revenue sharing.

Philippine patents, designs and exclusions

Under the IP Code, patents are categorised into invention patents, utility models and industrial designs. Invention patents protect new technical solutions, involve an inventive step, and are industrially applicable for a statutory term of 20 years from the filing date. Utility models safeguard technical solutions that meet the same criteria as an invention patent, except for the requirement of an inventive step, and have a non-extendible term of seven years from the filing date.

Industrial designs protect the unique ornamental, aesthetic or three-dimensional features that give a product a special appearance for a term of five years, extendible up to a maximum of 15 years through renewals.

As a signatory to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Philippines allows foreign applications to enter the national phase within 30 months from the earliest priority date or international filing date of the international application, which is extendible by one additional month upon payment of an extension fee.

The IP Code excludes specific subject matter from patent protection such as: discoveries; scientific theories; mathematical methods; laws of nature; abstract ideas or theories; schemes; rules; methods of performing mental acts and playing games; or methods of doing business.

IPOPHL Circular introduces patent changes

The IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No.2022-016 (Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations) introduced several procedural changes, namely:

Payment of fees. Applicants must pay the filing fee, first publication fee, priority claim fee, fees for claims in excess of five, and fees for excess pages in full upon filing, otherwise the application will be deemed to fail.

Responding to office actions. Applicants are now restricted to only one request for an extension of time to file a response, capped at a maximum of two months.

Opposition to voluntary withdrawal. Voluntary withdrawals of patent, utility model and industrial design applications must now be under oath, and these withdrawals are published in the IPOPHL E-Gazette, where they can be openly opposed by any person who would be prejudiced by the withdrawal.

Observation by third parties. Within six months from the date of publication of the application, any person may present observations in writing, sworn under oath, concerning the patentability of the invention. The examiner shall request the applicant to comment, and the parties may request a conference, after which the examiner will consider all the submissions and decide accordingly.

Patent enforcement and cancellation options

Infringements. To enforce its rights against an infringer, a patent owner, or anyone possessing any right, title or interest in a patented invention, may file an administrative action with the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPOPHL, or a civil action with a regional trial court designated as a special commercial court, with claims for damages. A criminal action may be filed only for repeat infringements.

Cancellation of patents. The BLA-IPOPHL has original jurisdiction over petitions for cancellation of patents or the claims in a patent, an inter partes action. There is no trial, and the parties exchange pleadings. Cancelling a patent or any claims may be raised as a defence or counterclaim in an infringement action.

Patent infringement damages and limitations

A patentee, or anyone with a right, title or interest in the patent, may bring an administrative action for IP violation or a civil action before regular courts to recover from the infringer actual damages, plus attorney fees and other litigation expenses. The court may award damages above the amount found as actual damage sustained, provided that such award does not exceed three times the amount of actual damage.

If the damage cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, the court may award a sum equivalent to a reasonable royalty. No damages can be recovered for acts of infringement committed more than four years before the filing of the action for infringement. Damages cannot be recovered for acts of infringement committed before the infringer had known, or had reasonable grounds to know, of the patent. Therefore, patent marking is desirable.

Trends in patent filing

Invention patent applications reached 4,486 filings in 2025, marking an 8.3% increase from 2024. Non-resident applicants accounted for most of these filings, with 3,479 submissions, while resident applications recorded a substantial 25.1% surge to total 1,007. By field, pharmaceuticals led with 794 applications (24.9%), followed by digital communication with 433 (13.6%) and biotechnology with 170 (5.3%).

Philippine patent infringement litigation trends

Despite increasing application numbers, patent infringement litigation remains relatively rare in the Philippines compared with trademark or copyright actions. However, in 2024, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued its decision, in Tuna Processors Inc v Frescomar Corp (2024), where it emphasised that, as stated in section 75 of the IP Code, the extent of protection conferred by the patent shall only be determined by the claims.

Any unclaimed invention or information disclosed in the description, like the other contents of a patent application and everything that has been made available to the public anywhere in the world, forms part of prior art.

Courts evaluate infringement through two standard thresholds, known as literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. In the landmark case of Phillips Seafood Corporation v Tuna Processors Inc (2023), the all-elements test was established as the standard when applying the doctrine of equivalents in determining patent infringement. In the past, the courts used any of the following tests: the insubstantial difference test; triple identity test; and all-elements test.

IPOPHL advances AI patent guidelines

To keep pace with emerging global trends, the IPOPHL has identified AI as a key policy priority. In alignment with the current administration’s launch of the National Intelligence Strategy, which set the direction for AI regulation and adoption in the Philippines, the agency is actively deploying its own dedicated AI strategy. In 2025, the IPOPHL shared that, as part of this technological modernisation, the Bureau of Patents had begun exploring the integration of AI tools into its examination process.

Additionally, recognising that the use and reliance on AI has become more common in inventions, the IPOPHL issued the Artificial Intelligence-Related Inventions Examination Guidelines for Examiners, which aim to help both applicants and patent examiners understand how AI-related inventions, as a subset of information and communication technology (ICT) and computer implemented invention (CII), shall be assessed through the establishment of criteria for patentability that are unique.

The guidelines cover key points on AI-related inventions including inventorship of AI, the test of enablement, and sufficiency of disclosure for clear description of AI’s function or integration within the system and training data, clarity, and support of the claims. The guidelines also address patentable AI and non-patentable AI as subject matter, particularly in distinguishing technical solutions from abstract ideas.

A foundational principle established by the guidelines is that AI can neither be an applicant nor an inventor, maker, or designer under the IP Code. Philippine law requires that all parties named in a patent application possess civil personality and juridical capacity, which are legal traits inherent only to natural human beings or formally recognised corporate entities.

Because an AI model lacks the legal capacity to act, own property, transmit rights or participate in infringement litigation, it cannot hold an authorship stake. Although the IP Code and its regulations do not explicitly limit inventorship to natural persons, this requirement is implied by the fact that filing a patent application requires the inventor’s legal name, specifically a first name, middle initial and surname.

As an AI system cannot possess a recognised legal name under Philippine law, it is excluded from being named as an inventor. Instead, the person who inputs the prompts and instructions for the AI to generate the design or invention would still be considered the inventor and/or applicant.

HECHANOVA GROUP
GF & 4F, Salustiana D. Ty Tower
104 Paseo de Roxas Avenue
Legaspi Village, Makati City 1229, Philippines
Tel: +63 2 8812 6561
Tel: +63 2 8888 4293
Tel: +63 2 8813 6820
Email: mail@hechanova.com.ph
www.hechanova.com.ph