Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Validity

  • 17 Apr 2009

    ABBOTT GMBH & CO KG AND ANOTHER v. PHARMAREG CONSULTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ABBOTT GMBH & CO KG AND ANOTHER v. PHARMAREG CONSULTING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA166/2009

    Court granted the interlocutory injunction because plaintiffs demonstrated very good prospects of success on both validity (Swiss‑type second medical use for obesity valid) and infringement (OBIRAX produced by Micro using Sibutramine and imported, stocked and put on market by defendants falls within s73(1)(c)), damages were an inadequate remedy given defendants' limited capital and risk of a commercial bridgehead before patent expiry, and any delay did not make grant unjust.

  • 30 Sept 2008

    TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1704/2007

    Rule 3 of the House Rules (prohibiting the keeping of dogs in the estate including private units) was invalid because the manager exceeded the authority granted by the registered Stage VII DMC: the manager's power to make rules was limited to rules relating to common parts and access areas and could not validly prohibit conduct within owners' units; Rule 3 also conflicted with Clauses 1, 3(1) and 3(2) of the DMC guaranteeing exclusive use and access rights; non-registration of the House Rules did not by itself render them void because the registered DMC referred to House Rules and owners are…

  • 15 Jul 1994

    CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LIMITED AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LIMITED AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7844/1993

    Court ordered limited discovery: defendants must provide details of quantities of cartridges and parts used and sold (either by producing relevant documents or by verified affidavit) within a reasonable time, with permission to return the matter if difficulties arise; held the British Leyland defence did not apply to manufacture of complete cartridges; three patents found valid and infringed, one patent invalid for obviousness, the fifth partially valid and infringed if amended; innocence defence rejected; applied liberal construction of the Registration of Patents Ordinance and restricted pr…

  • 18 Dec 1991

    IMPROVER CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. RAYMOND INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    IMPROVER CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. RAYMOND INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV193/1991

    The Court exercised its discretion to apportion costs: although the defendants succeeded on the issue of infringement and pursuing validity was reasonable, persistence on the validity point beyond first instance warranted a reduction in recoverable costs; accordingly plaintiffs were ordered to pay 90% of the defendants' costs of the appeal with Mayo J.'s earlier costs order left undisturbed.