Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SALUTICA ALLIED SOLUTIONS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
APPLE MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's patent infringement claim and defendant's counterclaim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's basis for disqualification of plaintiff's counsel. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. inapplicability of rule 3 regarding embarrassment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. independence of counsel not compromised. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. rule 27 and the need for direct pecuniary interest. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. defendant's failure to demonstrate grounds for disqualification. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. judicial discretion in disqualifying counsel. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. court's decision to dismiss the defendant's application. (Para 24) |
| 9. order for costs to be paid forthwith. (Para 25) |
| 10. reasons for ordering costs due to trial disruption. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is that the Defendant has infringed Claims 1 to 15 of its Patent. The Defendant has counterclaimed for an invalidation of Claims 1 to 15 of the Patent on the grounds that the invention is not novel and lacks inventive steps.
[2] The Plaintiff has at all times been represented by a particular legal firm ("the Firm"). One of the members of the team of counsel from the Fir
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
