-
Logo  
Contact InfoFeedback FormSitemap
 

Banner
level 2 bulletRecent Judgments
 
Print Friendly  

Patents and Inventions

Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd [2000] SGCA 39
  • This is the first case where the Singapore Court of Appeal set out the fundamentals of patent law, that is, novelty, inventive step, utility, sufficiency of disclosure and infringement. The court adopted the four-step approach in Windsurfing International v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) [1985] RFC 59 to determine whether there is an inventive step, which is required to obtain a patent.

Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur & Anor [2000] SGCA 60
  • This case held that in the construction of patent claims, the language should be given a "purposive" and not necessarily a literal construction. It adopted the “purposive approach” in the leading UK decision, Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RFC 183.

Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and Others and Other Suits (No 2) [2005] SGHC 90
  • The court, for the first time in Singapore, set out the test for the exercise of discretion in the amendment of patent specifications. No amendment should be allowed if it resulted in the specification disclosing any additional matter or extending the protection conferred by the patent. In exercising the discretion to allow amendments, the court had to take into account various factors such as whether the patentee had disclosed all the relevant information with regard to the amendments, whether the amendments are permitted in accordance with the statutory requirements, whether the patentee delayed seeking the amendments, whether the patentee had sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the patent and whether the patentee’s conduct discouraged the grant of the amendments.

FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others v Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 55
  • The court, for the first time in Singapore, set out the test for the exercise of discretion in the amendment of patent specifications. No amendment should be allowed if it resulted in the specification disclosing any additional matter or extending the protection conferred by the patent. In exercising the discretion to allow amendments, the court had to take into account various factors such as whether the patentee had disclosed all the relevant information with regard to the amendments, whether the amendments are permitted in accordance with the statutory requirements, whether the patentee delayed seeking the amendments, whether the patentee had sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the patent and whether the patentee’s conduct discouraged the grant of the amendments.



Last updated on 26 JUN 2006
If you need Adobe Reader, please download at http://get.adobe.com/reader
 
    Best viewed using IE 7.0+