Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Patent validity

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2016

XCELOM LTD v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

XCELOM LTD v. BGI-HONGKONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3089/2015

The summons for interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs delayed inordinate time before seeking relief indicating lack of irreparable harm, damages at common law would be an adequate remedy and the defendants could pay, and there was no other reason to depart from the normal rule against granting an interlocutory injunction; accordingly balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiffs.
6 Aug 2015

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION Co LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION Co LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2014

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge: the short-term patent was invalid for insufficiency (the specification and diagrams failed to enable a person skilled in the art to perform the claimed rotator-and-wedge method) and was also rendered invalid by enabling public disclosures/observations at the site; s129(1) places the legal burden of proving validity on the patentee and a mere search report is not by itself conclusive; Chim Kee was not liable as a joint tortfeasor because it did not perform all claim steps nor was there pleaded evidence of a common design; costs awarded against SNE…
23 Jun 2015

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1466/2012

The court held it had no jurisdiction to recall or vary the Amendment Order once leave to amend was given and acted upon (finality/functus officio), and even if jurisdiction existed the application to vary would be refused on discretionary grounds because the amendment was made in response to evidence adduced by the plaintiff at trial, the alleged misrepresentation was not shown to be deliberate or causative, the defendants acted reasonably, the obviousness issue did not significantly increase trial length or costs, and overall justice required costs to follow the event: the costs order nisi…
8 May 2015

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2014

The court found the appellant to be impecunious on the evidence, the appeal had at best arguable rather than strong prospects, and therefore in the exercise of its discretion the Court ordered security for costs (HK$1.5m), stayed the appeal pending payment and provided for dismissal in default; costs of the application awarded to the 1st defendant.
21 Nov 2014

SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1466/2012

The court held that the F & B Summons costs form part of the costs of the action (costs in the cause) because the 1st defendant's request for particulars on ownership/interest was a legitimate and relevant inquiry; and that the 1st defendant must pay the costs of the Discovery Summons because by pleading a contractual entitlement it put the contractual documents in issue and discovery would have been ordered had the defence not been abandoned.
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…
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.
11 Aug 1978

KEMTRON PROPERTIES PTY LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIMMY\'S CO LTD

Citation

KEMTRON PROPERTIES PTY LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIMMY\'S CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1196/1978

On the interlocutory material the court found a real prospect of success on the patent issue and a substantial question on passing off because the plaintiffs established significant sales and advertising and identifiable non‑utilitarian peculiarities in the fan's get-up; balance of convenience favored an injunction; discovery of customers ordered but limited to those supplied five or more fans and to plaintiffs' solicitors only.