SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Tony Yeo, Meryl Koh, Rozalynne Asmali and Javier Yeo, Drew & Napier LLC
(2) a summary by convenient periods of the rev - enues received from the use of such process; (3) a summary for the equivalent periods of the revenues (if any) received from the use of any equivalent prior art process; and (4) a summary by convenient periods of any expenditure which supported the use of the pro - cess mentioned in (1) and (3) above. It is not common for the court to grant discovery of inventor lab notebooks. Usually, the inven - tor’s subjective intentions and understanding of the patent and the motivations behind his/her invention are irrelevant. Validity issues and claim construction are always viewed from the lens of a person skilled in the art. 1.15 Defences and Exceptions to Patent Infringement The two key defences to patent infringement are (i) the invalidity of the patent, which is a complete defence; and (ii) non-infringement. While rarely relied on, a defendant may also rely on exceptions created by Section 66(2) of the PA for acts which would otherwise constitute infringement by virtue of being prohibited by Section 66(1) of the PA. The main categories of exceptions in Section 66(2) of the PA are: • acts which are done privately and for non- commercial purposes; • acts which are done for experimental pur - poses relating to the subject-matter of the invention; • acts which consist of the extemporaneous preparation of a medicine for an individual in accordance with a prescription given by a
registered medical or dental practitioner or consist of dealing with a medicine so pre - pared; • uses of a patented product or process by aircraft and ships which had temporarily or accidentally entered into Singapore’s airspace or territorial waters (as the case may be) or by exempted aircraft or ships; and • the parallel importation into Singapore, with consent of the foreign patent proprietor or his/her licensee, of any patented product or any product obtained by means of a patented process or to which a patented process has been applied. Further, under Section 71(1) of the PA, a person who in Singapore before the priority date of the invention does in good faith an act which would constitute an infringement of the patent if it were in force, or makes in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act, has the right to continue to do that act notwithstanding the grant of the patent. 1.16 Stays and Relevance of Parallel Proceedings In the event that post-grant opposition proceed - ings have commenced at the IPOS Registry prior to the revocation action in patent infringement proceedings in the General Division of the High Court, the parties can consider whether any of the proceedings ought to be stayed, and if so, which one. While there are no provisions in the ROC 2021 that provide for an automatic stay of proceedings, it is likely that parties will opt for the IPOS Registry proceedings to be stayed given that any appeal from the IPOS Registry would eventually be heard in the General Divi - sion of the High Court. It is, however, unlikely for the Singapore Court to agree to any stay on the basis of foreign pro -
290 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook