Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another

Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another

The patent claims (notably Claims 19 and 33) are valid: the asserted prior art did not clearly and unmistakably disclose the claimed antigenic sequence or render the invention obvious at the 22 Jan 1986 priority date, and the specification sufficiently taught how to identify immuno-reactive epitopes; the First Defendant’s kits, including the 18 mer antigen, infringed the pleaded claims; the Second Defendant participated in disposal in Singapore but was an innocent infringer so no damages or account ordered against it under s69(1); equitable defences of laches and acquiescence failed; counterclaim to revoke dismissed.

Citation
[2000] SGHC 53
Parties
Plaintiff: Institut Pasteur; Plaintiff: Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics; Defendant: Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd; Defendant: Nagase Singapore (Pte) Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Case Number
Suit 1762/1998
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / High Court Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; patent held valid and infringed; counterclaim dismissed; injunction and delivery-up ordered but stayed pending appeal; damages/account inquiry reserved and assessment stayed; costs awarded to plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Validity, Novelty (anticipation), Inventive Step (obviousness), Sufficiency of Disclosure, Infringement, Remedies (injunction, Damages, Account of Profits), Laches, Acquiescence, Innocent Infringer, Statutory Registration of Licences
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Equity Civil Procedure Validity Novelty (anticipation) Inventive Step (obviousness) Sufficiency of Disclosure +6 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 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Institut Pasteur

Plaintiff

Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics

Plaintiff

Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd

Defendant

Nagase Singapore (Pte) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / High Court Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Patent No. 9190285-8 was valid (novelty, inventive step, sufficiency)
  2. 2 Whether First Defendant infringed asserted claims (product and process claims)
  3. 3 Whether Second Defendant infringed as distributor and whether it was an innocent infringer

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claims (notably Claims 19 and 33) are valid: the asserted prior art did not clearly and unmistakably disclose the claimed antigenic sequence or render the invention obvious at the 22 Jan 1986 priority date, and the specification sufficiently taught how to identify immuno-reactive epitopes; the First Defendant’s kits, including the 18 mer antigen, infringed the pleaded claims; the Second Defendant participated in disposal in Singapore but was an innocent infringer so no damages or account ordered against it under s69(1); equitable defences of laches and acquiescence failed; counterclaim to revoke dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; patent held valid and infringed; counterclaim dismissed; injunction and delivery-up ordered but stayed pending appeal; damages/account inquiry reserved and assessment stayed; costs awarded to plaintiffs

Orders

  • Declaration that Patent No. 9190285-8 is valid and was infringed by the Defendants
  • Mandatory injunctions and order for delivery up/destruction of infringing articles (injunction and delivery-up stayed pending appeal)