Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KINGTIME INTERNATIONAL LTD – Appellant
Versus
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case involving mopu sepat. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the infringement and invalidation suits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. background facts regarding the development of sepat. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. chronology of kingtime's actions regarding patent infringement. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. issues to be decided in the judgment. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 6. limitation period for patent infringement claims. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. arguments regarding the time-barred nature of kingtime's claim. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. court's analysis on the limitation period. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 9. conclusion on the limitation issue. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 10. invalidation of patents due to lack of industrial applicability. (Para 126 , 127 , 128) |
| 11. invalidation of patents due to lack of inventive step. (Para 197 , 198 , 199) |
| 12. infringement analysis of the mopu sepat. (Para 260 , 261 , 262) |
| 13. final orders and conclusion of the judgment. (Para 320) |
A. Introduction
[1] I believe this to be the second case involving the MOPU Sepat.
[2] "MOPU" is an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
