Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Patent infringement

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2021

KARIBU BABY LTD v. J SOLUTION INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1674/2019

Karibu failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injunction with penal notice had been personally served on Lau or that the strict test for dispensing with personal service was met; absent personal service on the relevant officer, committal under Order 45 could not be ordered against J Solution or Lau, so the originating summons for committal must be dismissed.
18 Nov 2020

GREAT GENIUS INDUSTRIAL LTD v. LG CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP203/2020

The court refused leave. Patent infringement and breach of confidence claims lacked a serious question to be tried because the draft claim did not plead infringing acts in Hong Kong (patents are territorial) and the alleged confidential drawing was likely to be disclosed in the patent specification such that the breach of confidence claim had no real prospect. Although there was a serious question to be tried about what the parties had agreed concerning company operations and allegedly unauthorised dealings, pursuing a derivative action at this stage would not be in the interests of the compa…
6 Oct 2015

KARIBU BABY LTD v. GLOBAL YIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a COUPPIE

Citation

KARIBU BABY LTD v. GLOBAL YIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a COUPPIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1765/2014

No triable defence existed: patent infringement established and cannot be defended by belated reliance on s81(1); copyright infringement established as secondary infringement because the defendant marketed a product that was a copy and had constructive if not actual knowledge given inadequate due diligence and omitted evidence; accordingly summary judgment entered for plaintiff with injunctions and ancillary relief and indemnity costs from 31 May 2015.
19 Jan 2015

BULOVA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SAN MA INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

BULOVA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SAN MA INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1912/2013

The defendant was the true attacker because it initiated enforcement by sending multiple threatening letters and thus for purposes of security for costs is in the position of a plaintiff; the patent was assigned to a company effectively controlled by the patentee to avoid liability and the company appears to have no other business and produced no valuation, giving reasonable grounds to believe it would be unable to pay the plaintiffs' costs; accordingly the court ordered security for costs of HK$800,000 to be paid into court within 21 days, with liberty to apply for extension or further secur…
23 May 2013

CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW308/2012

The court held there existed bona fide and substantial disputes as to the invoiced sums (pre-July and July invoices) and that the company had demonstrated substantial and genuine cross-claims which, on the evidence, would exceed the petitioning debt; accordingly the winding-up petition was an abuse of process and was struck out, with costs to be borne by the petitioner (order nisi).
20 Jan 2012

GO WIRELESS LTD AND OTHERS v. SIMERAY JANNICK FACQUES AND OTHERS)

Citation

GO WIRELESS LTD AND OTHERS v. SIMERAY JANNICK FACQUES AND OTHERS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1480/2010

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed joinder of defendants alleged only unauthorised sublicensing and infringement which depended on the prior determination of whether the 1st plaintiff had been granted an exclusive worldwide licence by the appellant; therefore the infringement claims should await resolution of the ownership/licence issue and were not properly joined under O.15 r.3. The forgery allegation did not amount to a proper cause of action for joinder, and French law could not be relied on without leave to adduce expert evidence; joinder would also cause delay and disrupt the…
3 Jun 2011

DYSON TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GERMAN POOL GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DYSON TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GERMAN POOL GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA838/2011

The court found there is a serious issue to be tried on both the Patent and the copyright claims; on the balance of convenience and having regard to the inadequacy of damages to protect the plaintiffs' interests at the critical market launch period, interlocutory relief was appropriate. Undertakings were accepted in respect of models OF-510 and OF-512; injunctions were ordered in respect of models OF-513 and OF-613 and the order was extended to include any bladeless fan product which infringes the Patent; the 1st defendant was treated as having a serious issue to be tried and offered an oppor…
8 Jan 2010

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA166/2009

The court adopted and relied on Sakhrani J's earlier reasoning, found the defendants' preliminary points and factual variations to be without sufficient force at interlocutory stage, and held the balance of convenience favoured granting a nine‑month extension of the interlocutory injunction because plaintiffs would suffer irreparable or hard‑to‑quantify harm while any loss to defendants was quantifiable and compensable by damages.
17 Aug 2000

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. GIL MEDIA SERVICE CO. LTD.

Citation

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. GIL MEDIA SERVICE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4657/1999

Defendant failed to discharge the threshold evidential onus required in O.14 proceedings to demonstrate a credible triable issue on validity, infringement or estoppel; the defendant's assertions were unsubstantiated or contradicted by contemporaneous documents and the plaintiff's affidavits established a prima facie case, therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
8 Apr 1998

CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE CO. (HONG KONG) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. GREEN CARTRIDGE CO. (HONG KONG) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7844/1993

Paragraph 7 of the Court of Appeal order was construed as permissive rather than mandatory; the monies in the joint solicitors' account were not exclusively earmarked for damages and could be applied to satisfy the crystallised Privy Council costs; accordingly the First Instance court had jurisdiction to order payment from the joint account and did so subject to a limited stay to permit an application to the Court of Appeal.