Energenics Pte Ltd v Musse Singapore Pte Ltd and another suit

Energenics Pte Ltd v Musse Singapore Pte Ltd and another suit

Energenics has locus standi to pursue Mansel-related claims by virtue of assignable pre-grant interests under ss 19(2) and/or 20(1)(a) of the Patents Act, but attempting to determine Mansel's inventorship and related entitlement in the High Court at first instance (bypassing the Registrar of Patents) in the absence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] SGHCR 21
Parties
Plaintiff in Suit No 577 of 2011 and Suit No 383 of 2012: Energenics Pte Ltd; Defendant in Suit No 577 of 2011: Musse Singapore Pte Ltd; Defendant in Suit No 383 of 2012: Musse Incorporated
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 July 2013
Case Number
Suit No 577 of 2011 (Summons No 1047 of 2013) and Suit No 383 of 2012 (Summons No 1955 of 2013)
Procedural Posture
Civil Patent Entitlement Proceedings / Applications to Amend Reply (summons No 1047) and to Strike Out Parts of Statement of Claim (summons No 1955)
Outcome
Struck out parts of Energenics's Statement of Claim in Suit No 383 as amounting to abuse of process and refused amendment in Suit No 577 to introduce same claims
Legal Topics
Inventorship, Locus Standi, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction of Registrar Vs High Court, Rectification of Patent Register, Assignment of Pre Grant Rights
Source Language
english
Patent Law Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Inventorship Locus Standi Abuse of Process Jurisdiction of Registrar Vs High Court Rectification of Patent Register +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Energenics Pte Ltd

Plaintiff in Suit No 577 of 2011 and Suit No 383 of 2012

Musse Singapore Pte Ltd

Defendant in Suit No 577 of 2011

Musse Incorporated

Defendant in Suit No 383 of 2012

Procedural Posture

Civil Patent Entitlement Proceedings / Applications to Amend Reply (summons No 1047) and to Strike Out Parts of Statement of Claim (summons No 1955)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Energenics has locus standi to pursue Mansel-related inventorship claims
  2. 2 Whether pursuit of Mansel-related claims in the High Court at first instance is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether inventorship is assignable and the nature of interests assignable pre-patent grant

Ratio Decidendi

Energenics has locus standi to pursue Mansel-related claims by virtue of assignable pre-grant interests under ss 19(2) and/or 20(1)(a) of the Patents Act, but attempting to determine Mansel's inventorship and related entitlement in the High Court at first instance (bypassing the Registrar of Patents) in the absence of cogent justification amounts to an abuse of process; accordingly the Mansel-related paragraphs of the Statement of Claim in Suit 383 were struck out and the proposed amendment to the Reply in Suit 577 introducing the same claims was disallowed.

Court Disposition

Struck out parts of Energenics's Statement of Claim in Suit No 383 as amounting to abuse of process and refused amendment in Suit No 577 to introduce same claims

Orders

  • Paragraphs 8, 15-18 and 28(b) of the Statement of Claim in Suit No 383 struck out
  • Energenics not permitted to amend its Reply in Suit No 577 to reintroduce the Mansel-related claims