SPIND MALAYSIA SDN BHD vs JUSTRADE MARKETING SDN BHD & ORS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 1663

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SPIND MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JUSTRADE MARKETING SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Teo Bong Kwang,Wong Chee Wai,Ng Yueng May ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Chan Leong,Lee Yeok Choo

Table of Content
1. the appeal addresses the validity of patent claims based on predetermined legal questions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. validity of patent involves assessing inventiveness through established legal tests. (Para 10)
3. assessment of the patent's features and prior art demonstrated failure in novelty and inventive step. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16)
4. the presence of inventive step is a distinct requirement from novelty, requiring examination of expert evidence and prior art. (Para 14 , 19)

[1] The present appeal concerns the validity of a patent relating to a plumbing product known as the SPIND Floor Gully/Trap. The appellant brought an action for, inter alia, infringement of the patent against the respondents. The respondents filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid.

[2] On 27 November 2014, the High Court dismissed the appellants claim and allowed the respondents counterclaim.

[3] On 22 March 2016, the appellants appeal was unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

[4] Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 20 July 2016 in respect of the following questions of law:

(i) Whether for the purpose of considering whether a patented inven

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 1663

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYASPIND MALAYSIA SDN BHD – AppellantVersusJUSTRADE MARKETING SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SPIND MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JUSTRADE MARKETING SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent