+60 3 9771 8688
/
malaysia@henrygoh.com
Henry Goh Malaysia Brunei | Patent, Trade Mark And Industrial Design Agents Henry Goh Malaysia Brunei | Patent, Trade Mark And Industrial Design Agents Henry Goh Malaysia Brunei | Patent, Trade Mark And Industrial Design Agents Henry Goh Malaysia Brunei | Patent, Trade Mark And Industrial Design Agents
Navigation
  • Firm
  • Expertise
  • People
  • Updates
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • 中文组
  • Offices
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
singapore-after-sunseap-impact-on-the-law-and-practice

Singapore after Sunseap: Impact on the Law and Practice
by Juria Toramae

Earlier this year in a decision for Sunseap Group Pte Ltd & 2 Ors v Sun Electric Pte Ltd [2019] SGCA 4 (hereafter “Sunseap”)—a case between two Singapore based solar power companies—the Court of Appeal ruled that a High Court has an original jurisdiction to hear an application to revoke a patent in particular where such application is by way of a defence and counterclaim. Previously1, the High Court ruled that it had no such jurisdiction to hear patent revocation proceedings or grant orders for revocation even by way of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings as such order is in rem in nature. That High Court decision effectively meant that all applications for the revocation of a patent must be heard by the Registrar of Patents (“the Registrar”). However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision in Sunseap and ruled that there are two distinct categories with regard to patent revocations, one of which is where a defendant in patent infringement proceedings could challenge the validity of a patent and seek a revocation order. In such a case, the High Court has jurisdiction to determine validity of the patent (Section 67(1) read in conjunction with Section 82(1)(a) of the Patents Act).

Intriguingly, while providing scenarios in which a patent may be revoked, the Court of Appeal has made a statement that if all the independent claims in a patent are found to be invalid, the dependent claims “must necessarily fall away and the patent as a whole must be regarded as invalid.”2 This statement surprisingly echoes Malaysia’s SKB Shutters case3 where the Federal Court in 2015 ruled that the falling of an independent claim in a patent would cause the associated dependent claims to consequently fall as well. While the SKB Shutters case has been recently overruled through the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Hovid Berhad in 2019, the Court of Appeal’s statement in the Sunseap decision remains of a great concern in Singapore as it reflects a grave misunderstanding of patents law and practice.

Claims are essential in patent specifications as they define the scope of legal protection conferred by a patent. Claim are categorised into two types: independent and dependent claims, the former provide the broadest definition of the scope of protection while the latter contains one or more additional feature that narrows scope of protection of the independent claim it is dependent upon. Most importantly, where features in an independent claim are found in the prior art and thus found to be invalid, its dependent claim(s) can still be novel if they contain one or more additional features that are not disclosed in the prior art. A dependent claim is effectively an independent claim with a narrower scope of protection where its validity does not depend wholly on that of its independent claim. Consequently, where there is no positive indication on an independent claim but its dependent claim is allowable, the independent claim may be amended to incorporate the allowed dependent claim4. For these reasons, the statement in the Sunseap decision is incorrect and may potentially impact the way dependent claims are to be drafted and interpreted.

Following the Court of Appeal statement in the Sunseap case, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore has confirmed that the current practice of examining the independent and dependent claims according to the Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications, will continue to apply.

1Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd & Ors [2017] SGHC 232
2Sunseap Group Pte Ltd and others & Sun Electric Pte Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 645 at [70]
3SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Seng Kong Shutters Industries Sdn Bhd [2015] 6 MLJ 293
4See Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications at IPOS (April 2019 version), para 9.13.

Download
shadow

Categories

News and Events
Malaysia – Law and Practice Updates
Brunei – Law and Practice Updates
Newsletters

Recent Posts

Update on Singapore Legislation, Practice, and Global Innovation Ranking
by Juria Toramae & Cindy Loke
I – AMENDMENTS TO THE SINGAPORE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS ACT 2014 AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS RULES The Singapore Geographical Indications (Amendment) Act ...
Procedural Changes under the Malaysian Trademarks Act 2019
by Azlina A Khalid
Since our last article in August 2019 on Malaysia’s new Trademarks Act 2019 (“the Act”) and its subsequent enforcement on ...
Court of Appeal: Licensee is entitled to sue for Infringement jointly with Registered Design Owner
by Dave A Wyatt
Malaysia’s Patents Act 1983, Industrial Designs Act 1996 and Trademarks Act 2019 all contain provisions under which a licensee of ...
Moral Rights in Copyright
by Carmen Low
In our last article, we have explored one of the fundamentals of copyright in that an original work is protectable ...
Fuel Your Name
by Lim Eng Leong
What is in a name? Can one be entitled to use it legally as a trademark? The answers may be ...

Contact Us

VO2-10-06 Lingkaran SV
Sunway Velocity, Jalan Peel
55100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
+60 3 9771 8688
+60 3 9771 8788
malaysia@henrygoh.com

Useful Links

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO)
Malaysian Intellectual Property Association (MIPA)
The Brunei Intellectual Property Office (BruIPO)

Sign Up Newsletter

Make sure you don’t miss interesting happenings
by joining our newsletter program.

Copyright © 2021 Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd
  • Terms of Service
  • /
  • Privacy Policy
  • /
  • Data Protection Notice
  • /
  • Disclaimer
  • /