The lack of novelty in a patent claim invalidates the patent if anticipated by prior art; thus, all elements of the claim must be found in that art for invalidation.

[1] The appellants appeal against the decision of the High Court which allowed the respondent's claim against the appellants for infringement of Patent No. MY-128431-A ("MY Patent") entitled "Rolling Door" ("the plaintiff's Patent"). For the purpose of this judgment the parties will be referred to as they were in the Court below; that is to say, the appellants will be referred to as the 'defendants', whilst the respondent will be referred to as the 'plaintiff'.

Brief Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff, SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn Bhd is in the business of manufacturing, distributing and dealing in roller shutters, roller doors and a wide range of shutters. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the MY Patent. The plaintiff manufactures and distributes roller doors and roller shutters (exh P2) that incorporates the invention under the said MY Patent which are marketed and promoted under the name 'SKB VISION 7' (see pp 431-450 appeal record). The plaintiff is also the registered owner of Trade Mark Registration No. 98009483 'SKB VISION 7' in Malaysia for goods and services in Class 6.

[3] The 1st defendant, Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd is also in the business of dealing with roller shutters and other related products. The 2nd defendant, Tan Kooi Lim is a director and shareholder of the 1st defendant.

The Claim

[4] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for patent infringement. The plaintiff alleges that while the plaintiff's Patent is valid and subsisting, the defendants infringed the said Patent by making, selling, offering to sell and using, without the consent or licence of the plaintiff, products that incorporated features of the said Patent (exhs P3 and P5 at pp 451-456 appeal record).