JUDGMENT

Stephen Chung Hian Guan J:

[1] The 1st plaintiff claimed that he is an inventor of a system for the purpose of screening and separation of food waste, oil and grease and is the registered proprietor of a Malaysian Patent No MY-135509-A titled "SIMPAK - Sistem Penyaringan dan Pengasingan Sisa Makanan, Lemak dan Gris". He claimed it is at all material times in force under the Patents Act 1983. He has also registered 'SIMPAK' as his trademark.

[2] In para 10 of the Statement of Claim, the particulars of the patent are pleaded as follows:

"A tank which is rectangular and a cover. It has various important components, among others a screening container located at the top level inside the tank which functions as a trap for the food waste. There is a filter wall located in the tank which functions as a retention time for the purpose of separating the mass molecule of the water from the oil. 'T' trap is located in the tank functions as a trap for oil and grease and at the same time it allows clear and fresh water to go out to the drain or the other outlets. Whereby the screening container connecting to a pipe conduit located on the top level in the tank is to prevent food waste from sinking. The screening container has a wall with minute holes which are suitable for the screening and separation of the food waste, oil and grease to be effective."

[3] The 2nd plaintiff claimed that its business is in the installation, maintenance and repair of food, oil and grease traps. It has a Power of Attorney and the sole agent of the patent rights from the 1st plaintiff including selling the patent (product?) and taking legal proceedings for the State of Sarawak. In May, 2011, and January 2014, the plaintiffs had issued a warning notice that they are the owners of Patent MY-135509- A and prohibited anyone from infringing the patent.

[4] The plaintiffs complained that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have used the 1st plaintiff 's invention without the knowledge and consent of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. The plaintiffs complained that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants were using its grease trap to obtain profits by infringing the patent and that the 4th and 5th defendants used the grease trap at their various food premises in Kuching without the knowledge and consent of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.

[5] The plaintiffs contended that the defendants have infringed, threatened and intended to continue to infringe the patent unless restrained by the court. The plaintiffs claimed that they have suffered loss and damages. The plaintiffs prayed, inter alia, for (a) a declaration that the Patent No MY-135509-A is valid and has been infringed by the defendants; (b) an injunction to restrain the defendants, its Directors, officers, employees, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from infringing the patent; and (c) for damages amounting to millions. It must be noted that the plaintiffs did not plead and did not claim that the defendants have infringed the plaintiffs' 'SIMPAK' trade mark.

[6] The 1st to 3rd defendants denied the allegations of infringement. They contended that since 1998 they have developed, manufactured and have been selling grease traps bearing the registered trade mark POLYTRAP and or WEIDA.

[7] The 1st to 3rd defendants contended that at no time they had infringed the 1st plaintiff 's Utility Innovation bearing Certificate No MY-135509-A. They contended that the grease traps manufactured and sold by the 1st to 3rd defendants are not similar and not identical to the 1st plaintiff 's grease trap or utility innovation.

[8] The 4th defendant denied the plaintiffs' claims against the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant contended that any items or grease traps installed at the 4th defendant's premises were done in compliance with the requirements of the local authorities and there was no requirement for the 4th defendant to obtain the plaintiffs' permission to procure or install the grease traps.

[9] The 1st to the 4th defendants contended that the pl