JUDGMENT

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiffs' claim for patent infringement and the defendants' counterclaim for the plaintiffs' patent number MY-106710-A to be invalidated and expunged.

[2] The plaintiffs' prayers can be summarised inter alia as follows: (a) a declaration that the plaintiffs' patent MY-106710-A is valid and subsisting in Malaysia and that it has been infringed on by the defendants, (b) an injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringing the plaintiffs' patent by producing any offending electronic cradles with features and functions attributes in the manner claimed in the plaintiffs' patent, (c) an order for the delivery or destruction of all offending cradles manufactured and distributed by the defendants with features and functions attributes in the manner claimed in the plaintiffs' patent, (d) an order for full discovery of all relevant documents, invoices etc in relation to the manufacture, use, distribution, sale and storage of the infringed electronic cradles with features and functions attributes in the manner claimed in the plaintiffs' patent, (e) an inquiry as to damages on the infringement or alternatively at the plaintiffs' option, an account of profits.

[3] The defendants' prayers can be summarised inter alia as follows: (a) a declaration that the plaintiffs' patent is invalid (b) an injunction restraining the plaintiffs inter alia from slandering the defendants, their product model No. 2002G-1, interfering with the 1st and 4th defendants' trade and business, (c) inquiry into damages etc.

[4] In essence, the defendants say that the plaintiffs did not invent any cradle which can be patented. The 2nd defendant had died before the commencement of the trial. The plaintiffs have agreed to drop and abandon all claims against the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs had also initiated a similar action against another competitor in suit No. D5 (IP)-22-1147-2004. The outcome of this trial will be relevant to that suit.

Brief Facts

[5] Plaintiffs were granted patent for its product 'Automatic Electronic Baby Cradle' on 31 July 1995, and allege that the 2nd defendant was a supplier of key materials of the patented invention and was the main director of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs had also registered the patent in U.K. The plaintiffs allege that its products were made using and applying the teachings of the said patent, and the defendants have infringed on their patent, which the defendants deny.

[6] The defendants say that they had registered two patents namely: (i) Patent No. MY-114651-A (for a "Structure of a Synchronous Reciprocation Tracking Device) and Patent No. My-114980-A (for an improved structure of A Hammock Type Infant cradle) which will be referred to as defendants' patent 1 and patent two respectively. The defendants had also registered the said patent in U.K. and Singapore. The defendants allege the plaintiffs' patent does not satisfy the conditions, requirements and provisions of ss. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 29A, 30, 56(1) and 56(2) of PA 1983. In addition, they argue that there is no infringement, as their patents 1 and 2 are registered patents and do not fall within the plaintiffs' claim. Furthermore, the defendants allege that the plaintiffs' intention and scheme was to monopolise the plaintiffs' patent and thereby destroy the defendants who are the competitors, and thus conclude that by reason of the plaintiffs: (i) suit, (ii) abuse of process of the court, (iii) slander/defamation of the defendants, their patented goods and title to their patented goods, (iv) wrongful interference of the defendants' legitimate trade and (v) unlawful inducement of the breach of contract by the defendants' customers against the defendants, the defendants has suffered substantial loss and damages and incurred substantial costs in defending this action.

Preliminaries

[7] Three witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiffs and three for both defend