Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Patent infringement

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2025

INFRA PURI SDN. BHD. AVENUE S2 SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-91-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-91-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to plead a cognisable cause of action for breach of confidence with necessary particulars, failed to identify which specific features of the defendant's device allegedly infringe the UI or patent and produced no credible technical comparison or probative evidence; damages were available and contemplated in the claim and the plaintiff could not give a meaningful undertaking given its adverse financial position; unexplained delay and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.
15 Jun 2023

Powerscan Company Limited 1. ) Nuctech Company Limited 2. ) Tsinghua University

Citation

W-02(IPCV)(W)-283-02/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IPCV
Case number

W-02(IPCV)(W)-283-02/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the '862 Patent is valid (no suppression; novelty and inventive step established), the BT-Scan and BP-Scan systems infringe the asserted claims (claims 1 and 9), Goh is not personally liable for the company's infringement, the application to regularize the amended MOA was dismissed, and costs were adjusted upward on cross-appeal.
15 Jun 2023

1. ) Pan Asiatic Technologies Sdn Bhd (No Syarikat: 742846-D) 2. ) Goh Chu Leong (No. K/P : 640520-01-5835) 1. ) Nuctech Company Limited 2. ) Tsinghua University

Citation

W-02(IPCV)(W)-223-02/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IPCV
Case number

W-02(IPCV)(W)-223-02/2015 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the ‘862 Patent is valid (novel and inventive); alleged suppression/non-disclosure did not satisfy s56(2)(e) because prescribed disclosure is limited to information available at time of substantive examination and the material relied upon was either unavailable within that meaning or already in the High Court record; BT-Scan and BP-Scan systems fall within the purposively construed integers of claims 1 and 9 and therefore infringe; Goh is not personally liable because there was insufficient evidence he made the infringing acts his own; cross-appeals on costs allowed and costs w…
1 Sept 2021

KINGTIME INTERNATIONAL LTD PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-55-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-55-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant raised bona fide triable issues of fact and law—notably the binding effect/admissibility of the Petrofac judgment against a non-party, potential res judicata/abuse of process, the correct interpretation and application of s.59(3) Patents Act 1983 (limitation) and whether the WHSS falls within the patent claims—that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence and require full trial examination; therefore Order 14 relief was inappropriate.
1 Sept 2021

KINGTIME INTERNATIONAL LTD PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-55-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-55-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the Defendant raised bona fide triable issues of fact and law — notably the legal effect of the Petrofac judgment on a non‑party, res judicata/estoppel arguments, the characterization of WHSS and the operation and commencement of the limitation under s.59(3) — which are mixed questions requiring evidence and full trial; Order 14 relief is limited to very clear cases and cannot be used to decide these complex issues on affidavit evidence.
21 Feb 2020

EMERICO SDN BHD MAXVIGO SOLUTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22IP-62-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-62-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the UI valid and enforceable because statutory time extensions from MyIPO rendered the divisional and conversion filings timely, the Claim is clear and supported by the specification, and the Defendant failed to prove anticipation by any single prior art (mosaicking and reliance on common general knowledge were rejected). The Court rejected the credibility of the Defendant's experts due to lack of independence and gave greater weight to Plaintiff's independent experts. On infringement the Court found the Defendant's products embody all claim integers under purposive constructio…
21 Oct 2019

1. Billion Prima Sdn Bhd 2. Pan Asiatic Technologies Sdn Bhd 1. Nuctech Company Limited 2. Tsinghua University

Citation

22IP-50-09/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22IP-50-09/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Post-trial discovery was necessary to enable the defendants to make an informed election between assessment of damages and an account of profits; plaintiffs failed to substantiate public interest immunity as to the financial and commercial documents sought; confidentiality, if any, can be managed by protective measures; accordingly limited discovery (number of machines, revenue received/receivable, costs or estimated costs related to the BBScan system) was ordered with fixed deadlines and the defendants ordered to elect by a specified date.
8 Jul 2019

Hong Yik Plastics (M) Sdn Bhd 1. Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd 2. TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn Bhd

Citation

B-02(NCVC)(W)-1790-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

B-02(NCVC)(W)-1790-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The judge's frequent, intemperate, hostile and prejudicial interventions during examination of the appellant's witnesses demonstrated loss of impartiality and denied the appellant a fair hearing; exercising the Court of Appeal's discretion under s.71(1) CJA 1964 the High Court judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered before another judge to secure a fair trial.
8 Jul 2019

Hong Yik Plastics (M) Sdn Bhd 1. Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn Bhd 2. TNL Plastic Manufacturer Sdn Bhd

Citation

B-02(NCVC)(W)-1790-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

B-02(NCVC)(W)-1790-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The trial judge's tenor, frequency and nature of interventions were such that she ceased to act as a neutral umpire, thereby denying the appellant a fair hearing; the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court judgment and ordered a new trial before another judge with no order as to costs.