ELEMENT SIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v IIa TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.

ELEMENT SIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v IIa TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.

Where a defendant alleges invalidity by reference to multiple and lengthy pieces of prior art, it must, as a matter of pleading, identify the combinations of prior art it intends to rely on and specify the passages of lengthy prior art relied upon because these are material facts necessary to define the issues; such particulars do not improperly convert pleadings into expert evidence. Conversely, particulars seeking detailed commercial success data that are the subject of the O 87A r 5(3) discovery schedule are discovery matters and not particulars to be ordered under O 18 r 12/O 87A r 3(5). The court therefore ordered the Combination and Passage Requests to be granted and the Commercial...

Citation
[2017] SGHCR 16
Parties
Plaintiff / Applicant in Hc/sum 2929/2017 / Respondent in Hc/sum 2935/2017: Element Six Technologies Ltd; Defendant / Respondent in Hc/sum 2929/2017 / Applicant in Hc/sum 2935/2017: IIa Technologies Pte Ltd
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Case Number
HC/S 26/2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity (revocation) Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Further and Better Particulars Under O 18 R 12 and O 87 a R 3
Outcome
Combination and Passage Requests allowed; Commercial Success Requests disallowed
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Invalidity (novelty and Inventive Step), Commercial Success, Prior Art Combinations (mosaicking), Passage Particularisation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Patent Law Intellectual Property Further and Better Particulars Invalidity (novelty and Inventive Step) Commercial Success Prior Art Combinations (mosaicking) Passage Particularisation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Element Six Technologies Ltd

Plaintiff / Applicant in Hc/sum 2929/2017 / Respondent in Hc/sum 2935/2017

IIa Technologies Pte Ltd

Defendant / Respondent in Hc/sum 2929/2017 / Applicant in Hc/sum 2935/2017

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity (revocation) Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Further and Better Particulars Under O 18 R 12 and O 87 a R 3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant must particularise combinations of prior art it relies upon to attack patent validity (obviousness)
  2. 2 Whether a defendant must specify particular passages/pages/lines of lengthy prior art relied upon for anticipation/obviousness
  3. 3 Whether a patentee must plead detailed particulars of commercial success beyond the O 87A r 5(3) discovery schedule

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant alleges invalidity by reference to multiple and lengthy pieces of prior art, it must, as a matter of pleading, identify the combinations of prior art it intends to rely on and specify the passages of lengthy prior art relied upon because these are material facts necessary to define the issues; such particulars do not improperly convert pleadings into expert evidence. Conversely, particulars seeking detailed commercial success data that are the subject of the O 87A r 5(3) discovery schedule are discovery matters and not particulars to be ordered under O 18 r 12/O 87A r 3(5). The court therefore ordered the Combination and Passage Requests to be granted and the Commercial...

Court Disposition

Combination and Passage Requests allowed; Commercial Success Requests disallowed

Orders

  • Defendant to provide particulars of each combination of prior art it relies on to invalidate each challenged claim within eight weeks from the date of judgment (8 weeks ordered)
  • Defendant to specify, for each combination containing the eight lengthy pieces of prior art identified, the specific passages (page, paragraph and/or line numbers) relied upon