Malaysia: Court of Appeal Overruled High Court’s Decision
In the case of Cadware Sdn Bhd v Ronic Corporation, the Court of Appeal of Malaysia set aside the order of the High Court and declared that Cadware Sdn Bhd had not infringed Ronic Corporation’s Malaysian patent.
Cadware Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) manufactures and distributes a soya milk machine product called “One Touch Energy Maker” (hereinafter referred to as “the...
Malaysia: Good And Bad News For NEP Holdings
In the case of NEP Holdings (Malaysia) Berhad v C.K Filtration Technology Sdn Bhd, the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur upheld the validity of NEP Holdings (Malaysia) Berhad’s Malaysian patent while dismissing their claim for patent infringement against C.K Filtration Technology Sdn Bhd.
NEP Holdings (Malaysia) Berhad (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) is a publicly listed...
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...
Malaysia: Court of Appeal Rejects Pfizer’s Application To Amend Patent
In the case of Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., the Malaysian Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision and restricted Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals from modifying its patent claims.
Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant’) is the owner of Malaysian Patent No. MY-111446-A (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant’s...
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...
Malaysia: Nehemiah Reinforced Soil Sdn Bhd v Patrick Cyril Augustin & Anor: High Court’s Decision Upheld by Court of Appeal
Recipients of our e-newsletters will surely recall that we had reported in February 2012 that Malaysian High Court in Shah Alam had declared Patrick Cyril Augustin & Anor’s Malaysian Patent No. MY-103619-A to be invalid. Patrick Cyril Augustin & Anor had filed an appeal against the decision and recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and declared the patent to be...
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...
WHAT MADE THIS MALAYSIAN PATENT REVOKED?
The Malaysian High Court in Shah Alam, Selangor has recently revoked Malaysian Patent No. MY-103619-A and the reasons for the revocations made an interesting reading.
In the case of Nehemiah Reinforced Sdn. Bhd. vs. Patrick Cyril Augustine & Imbiraj K. S. Abraham, the Court held that Malaysian Patent No. MY-103619-A (hereinafter referred to as “the Patent”) which was granted...