SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Tony Yeo, Meryl Koh, Rozalynne Asmali and Javier Yeo, Drew & Napier LLC
might defeat the purpose of the application with - out notice. However, in such cases, the reasons for not following the directions should be clearly set out in the affidavit prepared and filed in sup - port of the application without notice. Even if the interim injunction is not granted, a party may apply for an expedited trial of the action. Although it is not a requirement, the court may take into account the expediency on which the application for interim injunction is filed. If an application for interim injunction is filed long after the alleged infringing product has been released in the Singapore market, then the court may infer that it is not a situation where damages cannot compensate the loss, because if that were true, the patent proprietor should have taken steps to arrest the problem and stop the release of the product as soon as possible. In specific relation to therapeutic products to be registered in Singapore, pursuant to the Health Products Act (HPA) and the Regulations, a 30-month moratorium on registering the said products is available to patent proprietors who are put on notice that an applicant is seeking to register a therapeutic product which is related to a patent that is currently in force. This mora - torium is automatic and will kick in on the date that the patent proprietor commences a patent infringement action against the applicant. In practice, this is a more viable option than the customary qua timet injunction to prevent an imminent threat of infringement. 1.4 Structure of Main Proceedings on Infringement/Validity Infringement and invalidity are generally heard together due to the need to engage expert wit - nesses for common issues such as claim con -
struction. It is very rare for the court to agree to bifurcate infringement and validity proceed - ings. The court will usually agree if there is a very clear case of invalidity. For example, prior to the amendment to the Singapore Patents Act in 2021, there was no grace period of 12 months for prior disclosures to be disregarded, unlike other jurisdictions (eg, USA). Consequently, prior sales within the 12-month grace period might have been excluded in other jurisdictions, but it will be considered as citable prior art in Sin - gapore. In such situations, the court may be of the view that it would be better to bifurcate the infringement and validity proceedings, since the possibility of the patent being invalidated by its own poison prior disclosure is high. While it is technically possible for another party to file nullity proceedings in court while patent office revocation actions are ongoing, in prac - tice, once IPOS learns that nullity proceedings have been filed in court, IPOS will typically stay proceedings at IPOS pending the court’s deter - mination on the matter. 1.5 Timing for Main Proceedings on Infringement/Validity Proceedings for patent infringement have to be commenced by Originating Claim in the General Division of the High Court. As patent infringe - ment is a statutory tort, the limitation period of six years for an action founded on a tort applies. Where there is ongoing infringement of the pat - ent in question, a fresh cause of action accrues every day. However, the patent proprietor’s right to bring an action is restricted to the part of the wrong which was committed in the past six years. While not mandatory, a letter of demand is usu - ally sent before proceedings are commenced. This depends on whether the patent proprietor
282 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook