Non-disclosure of material facts led to the dismissal of ex parte orders and established the court's discretion in injunction matters.

[1] This judgment discusses the following questions:

1) when the plaintiff company (the plaintiff) has obtained an:

(a) ex parteAnton Piller order (APO) and

(b) an ex parte interlocutory injunction

(Ex Parte Orders) against the 1st defendant company (the 1st defendant), whether the court has the power to grant:

(i) an ad interim APO and

(ii) an ad interim injunction

- pending the disposal of the plaintiff's inter partes application for an APO and an interlocutory injunction;

2) whether the plaintiff can apply for an inter partes APO and an inter partes interlocutory injunction against the 2nd defendant company (2nd defendant), the 3rd defendant company (the 3rd defendant) and the 4th defendant company (the 4th defendant) by merely filing an affidavit affirmed by the plaintiff's learned counsel;

3) whether the court should set aside the Ex Parte Orders on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to disclose material facts to the court. In this regard, did the plaintiff have a duty to inquire regarding the commercial exploitation of the machinery in question before applying for the Ex Parte Orders?;

4) whether there is real risk of destruction or concealment of evidence for the court to grant an inter partes APO; and

5) whether the court should grant an inter partes interlocutory injunction to restrain:

(a) the 1st to 4th defendants (the defendants) from, among others, exploiting in any manner the use of any machine which infringe:

(i) the plaintiff's Patent No: MY-138949-A (Patent No: 949); and

(ii) the plaintiff's Patent No: MY-151795-A (Patent No: 795) (Alleged Infringing Products); and

(b) the 1st defendant from moving, transferring and/or disposing the Alleging Infringing Products in the 1st defendant's two premises.

B. The Plaintiff's Case

[2] The plaintiff is involved in research, design, manufacture and sale of machineries and equipment which can conduct tests on semiconductor devices.

[3] The 1st defendant is an accredited laboratory which conducts testing of semiconductor devices.

[4] The 2nd defendant is a public listed company which designs, manufactures and sells machineries and equipment to test semiconductor devices. The 3rd defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 2nd defendant which is involved in the same business as the 2nd defendant.

[5] The 4th defendant manufactures and sells "Light Emitting Diode" (LED) devices.

[6] The plaintiff has registered Patent No: 949 on 24 December 2004 for an "Apparatus/Test Handler for Testing Unmoulded IC Devices Using Air Flow System and the Method of Testing the Same".

[7] In or around 2005, the 4th defendant approached the plaintiff to invent a machine to test the 4th defendant's products which comprised a ceramic tile embedded with LED devices. Subsequently, the plaintiff improved and modified Patent No. 949 to enable the plaintiff to test the 4th defendant's LED tiles. These efforts by the plaintiff culminated in Patent No. 795 for a "Pressurized Air-Chamber Testing Device for Semiconductor Elements and a Method Thereof" which is registered on 10 July 2008. Patent Nos 949 and 795 will be referred in this judgment as the "plaintiff's patents".

[8] In 2008, the plaintiff produced the first machine based on Patent No: 795 (plaintiff's machine) which was purchased by Device Semiconductor Sdn Bhd. The 4th defendant also purchased the plaintiff's machines.

[9] In early December 2013, the 4th defendant sought a license from the plaintiff for either one or both of the plaintiff's patents. The plaintiff rejected the 4th defendant's proposal. Subsequently, the 2nd and 3rd defendants manufactured machines called "Vicnery System" (VS Machines) which had been purchased by the 4th defendant to test the 4th defendant's LED tiles.

[10] Prior to the execution of the ex parte APO in this case, the plaintiff claimed to have no k