SINGAPORE: WARNER-LAMBERT TAKES ON NOVARTIS (SINGAPORE)
The appeal arises from the dispute of two pharmaceutical giants, Warner-Lambert Company LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Warner-Lambert”) and Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Novartis”). The subject matter refers to a pharmaceutical patent owned by Warner-Lambert which monopolises the use of a substance known as “pregabalin” (the Patent discussed) used in the treatment...
SINGAPORE: POST-GRANT AMENDMENTS
In the case of Genpharm International Inc v Lonza Biologics Tuas Pte Ltd, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) awarded costs of S$475.00 against the Applicant with S$300 for interlocutory proceedings and S$175 for attendance at the proceedings. The correction made in Table 17 in the patent specification was accepted and other proposed correction by Genpharm International Inc....
Singapore: Attack On Inventorship
In the case of Energenics Pte. Ltd. v Musse Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Another, the High Court of Singapore rejected Energenics Pte. Ltd.’s application to reintroduce the issue of one Mansel’s inventorship of the invention, while accepting the Musse Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Another’s application to strike out the same.
Musse Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Another (hereinafter referred to as “the...
Singapore: Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd Granted Rights To Obtain Further and Better Particulars
In the case of AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court allowed the request by Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd and ordered AstraZeneca AB (SE) to furnish further and better particulars of that were requested by Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd.
AstraZeneca AB (SE) (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) is the proprietor of Singapore Patent No. SG 89993...
Singapore: Patent can be amended when its validity is being challenged
In the case of Novartis AG and another v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., the High Court of Singapore allowed Novartis AG the leave to amend the claims of its patent although the validity of the patent is being challenged by Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Novartis AG (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’) is the registered proprietor of the Singapore Patent No SG 120119 (hereinafter referred...
Singapore: Patent held valid and hence infringed
In the case of Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd. v DBS Bank Ltd, the High Court of Singapore upheld the validity of the Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd. patent and found that it had been infringed by DBS Bank Ltd.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Plaintiff’) owns Singapore Patent No. 86037, filed in 1999 and granted in 2003. The patent, entitled...
SINGAPORE PATENT CASE UPDATE: MARTEK TURNS THE TABLES ON APPEAL
Martek Biosciences Corporation had recently succeeded in getting the Singapore High Court in affirming that Martek’s Singapore Patent No. 42669 (hereinafter referred to as “the Singapore Patent”) to be valid.
By way of history, a Tribunal comprising the Deputy Registrar of Patents and the Principal Assistant Registrar of Patents had held that the Singapore Patent to be invalid and therefore...