Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Novelty

  • 13 Mar 2025

    1. ) CHONG TECK CHOY 2. ) MS-PRINT INDUSTRY SDN BHD BINA-SAFEE SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    P1 failed to prove the eye-appeal requirement because no evidence from real customers of the finished warning tape was adduced; independent evidence established prior public disclosure of substantially similar warning tapes predating the filing date (including samples from Agroplus and Electroplast Holland), and the alleged distinguishing feature (gap between squares) was immaterial; accordingly RID0342 is not new and is not registrable under the Industrial Design Act 1996, warranting rectification under section 24 and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

  • 8 Jul 2020

    1. Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd 2. Profina Teknik Sdn Bhd YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    NCVC
    Case number
    J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held the patent was invalid for lack of novelty and, alternatively, for obviousness because the respondent's purported invention had been previously disclosed and used (prototype at Keck Seng, Kim Loong drawings and Desa Kim Loong machine and industry publications) prior to the priority date; the prototype was not shown to be confidential or subject to enforceable restrictions and therefore formed part of the prior art; the dependent claims likewise lacked novelty/ inventive step; consequently patent and copyright claims failed and the appellants' counterclaim (declarations of inval…