Not long ago, we commented on the Singapore High Court decision to revoke Muhlbauer AG’s Singapore Patent No. 117982.
Muhlbauer has since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal has subsequently overturned the High Court’s decision and declared the patent as valid and therefore enforceable.
The High Court found that the expert witness provided by Manufacturing Integration Technology (MIT) Ltd was more persuasive than the expert witness provided by Muhlbauer.In the appeal proceedings however, the Court of Appeal held the view that the current expert system was lacking and required a thorough review.
In the recent appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal stated that it was important to ascertain (i) what exactly constituted the basis for the respective expert reports, (ii) the assumed bias on the part of the expert concerned and in the choice of experts, (iii) the expert evidence pertaining issues as to whether the patent is novel and/or whether an inventive step exists vis-à-vis the state of the art itself, subject to the legal criteria contained in the Singapore Patents Act.
For item (i) the Court of Appeal noted that ‘it is both logical and commonsensical that if the basis or starting-point is either shaky or (worse still) flawed, the conclusion arrived at will be of little or no use to the court. Indeed, if there is in fact something untoward in the starting-point, even the most impeccable reasoning process will be of no avail in so far as the quest for a fair and just result is concerned.’
For item (ii), the Court of Appeal reiterated that the experts brought in by both parties in the suit have an overriding duty to objective justice and to the court.
For item (iii), the Court of Appeal takes into account that the legal requirements for patentability do not assume knowledge and expertise beyond what a reasonable person “skilled in the art” would possess. With this, many “experts” would not themselves fall within this particular category of persons “skilled in the art” as they would possess “extraordinary knowledge” as well as “expertise”.
In view of this decision, we would strongly recommend that clients intending to commence patent litigation action in Singapore carefully review their position, particularly in relation to the appointment of an expert witness.
Our Regional Office in Singapore, KASS Regional IP Services Pte. Ltd., can assist you with any request or enquiry that you may have on Singapore IP matters. We also coordinate and provide advice on all IP prosecution, enforcement and litigation matters in South East Asian region. Please feel free to contact our Singapore Office at ipr@kass.com.sg if you require any further clarifications.
- Spotting Seiko in Seiki? - May 17, 2016
- The Non-Use of PARLIAMENT in Malaysia - April 25, 2016
- [Business Today] The Recipe to Success… - October 20, 2015
