ELEMENT SIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v IIa TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.

ELEMENT SIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v IIa TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.

Court held SG 872 valid and entitled to priority of 21 Nov 2002; defendant failed to prove lack of novelty or inventive step for Claim 1 and failed to prove prior art inevitably produced the claimed low-birefringence product; Claim 62 (process with controlled nitrogen 300 ppb–5 ppm and substrate preparation) is also inventive because it ran counter to common general knowledge and produced the claimed result; evidentiary chain established that three Samples originated from defendant and fingerprinting (DiamondView, cross-polar, weights/dimensions) plus independent experiments (Metripol and EPR at Warwick) demonstrated Samples meet SG 872 metrics so defendant infringed SG 872 product and...

Citation
[2020] SGHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff: Element Six Technologies Ltd; Defendant: IIa Technologies Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Case Number
HC/S 26/2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Revocation (patents Act) / High Court Trial Judgment on Validity and Infringement
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff: SG 872 valid and infringed; SG 508 invalid and revoked; injunctions and ancillary relief granted; account/damages reserved for later stage
Legal Topics
Validity, Infringement, Priority, Claim Construction, Novelty, Inventive Step, Sufficiency, Chain of Custody, Experimental Evidence
Source Language
English
Patents Intellectual Property Evidence Civil Procedure Validity Infringement Priority Claim Construction +5 more

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Element Six Technologies Ltd

Plaintiff

IIa Technologies Pte Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Revocation (patents Act) / High Court Trial Judgment on Validity and Infringement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of Singapore Patent No 115872 (SG 872)
  2. 2 Validity of Singapore Patent No 110508 (SG 508)
  3. 3 Priority dates and entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

Court held SG 872 valid and entitled to priority of 21 Nov 2002; defendant failed to prove lack of novelty or inventive step for Claim 1 and failed to prove prior art inevitably produced the claimed low-birefringence product; Claim 62 (process with controlled nitrogen 300 ppb–5 ppm and substrate preparation) is also inventive because it ran counter to common general knowledge and produced the claimed result; evidentiary chain established that three Samples originated from defendant and fingerprinting (DiamondView, cross-polar, weights/dimensions) plus independent experiments (Metripol and EPR at Warwick) demonstrated Samples meet SG 872 metrics so defendant infringed SG 872 product and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff: SG 872 valid and infringed; SG 508 invalid and revoked; injunctions and ancillary relief granted; account/damages reserved for later stage

Orders

  • Declare SG 872 valid
  • Declare SG 872 has been infringed by defendant (Samples 2, 3 and 4)