Only the registered owner of a patent can initiate infringement proceedings; the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish infringement, which they failed to do.

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendants under the Patents Act, 1983 ("Act") for alleged infringement of the following three patents (collectively, "Patents"):

(i) Patent No MY-118172-A ("Patent 172"), specifically Claims 7 and 10;

(ii) Patent No MY-141626-A ("Patent 626"), specifically Claim 1; and

(iii) Patent No MY-158062-A ("Patent 062"), specifically Claim 3.

[2] The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' infringement of the Patents was by 16 mobile telephone devices which the Defendants have allegedly made, imported, offered for sale, sold, used or stocked for the purpose of offering for sale selling or using (collectively, "Devices"). The Patents relate to the formatting of audio and visual signals according to the MPEG-2 TS format. The Plaintiff alleges that the Devices to infringe the Patents because they are capable of generating audio and visual data formatted according to that same MPEG-2 TS format.

[3] This Judgment is after the full trial of the action.

B. Two Preliminary Issues

[4] Before dealing with the issue of patent infringement, based on the pleadings, there are two preliminary issues which ought to be dealt with first that would narrow the scope of determining the issue of patent infringement. They are:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to bring infringement proceedings in respect of Patent 172; and

(ii) Whether the 1st Defendant has made, imported, offered for sale, sold, used or stocked for the purpose of offering for sale selling or using the Devices.

1st Preliminary Issue: Plaintiff's Locus Standi In Respect Of Patent 172

[5] This issue arises because the Plaintiff is not registered as the proprietor of Patent 172 in the Register maintained under the Act; instead, a company called GE Technology Development Inc. ("GE Technology") is.

[6] The Plaintiff alleges that, even though it is not registered as the proprietor of Patent 172 in the Register, it has the necessary locus standi to bring this action for infringement of Patent 172 because, by an assignment agreement dated 12 September 2019 ("alleged assignment agreement"), GE Technology had assigned Patent 172 to it. Thus, the Plaintiff argues that, it is the beneficial owner of Patent 172, and that beneficial ownership confers locus standi on it to bring this action for infringement of Patent 172.

[7] I find no merit in the Plaintiff's contentions, for several reasons.

[8] Firstly, the relevant provisions of the Act envisage that only the registered owner of a patent has the right to bring infringement proceedings of its patent.

[9] Section 38(1) and (2) of the Act provide:

"(1) Subject and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part, the owner of a patent shall have the following exclusive rights in relation to the patent:

(a) to exploit the patented invention;

(b) to assign or transmit the patent;

(c) to conclude licence contracts; and

(d) to deal with the patent as the subject of a security interest.

(2) No person shall do any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) without the consent of the owner of the patent."

[10] Section 58 of the Act then specifies acts that are deemed to be infringement of a patent:

"Subject to subsection 37(1), (2) and (3) and s 38, an infringement of a patent shall consist of the performance of any act referred to in subsection 36(3) in Malaysia by a person other than the owner of the patent