Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

News:

Have a good day.


Author Topic: Patent Infringement Cases  (Read 15703 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full-time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,953
  • May all beings be well and happy.
Patent Infringement Cases
« on: July 25, 2014, 10:22:15 PM »
TITLE: Inventor says HDB infringed patent for clothes-drying rack
By Neo Chai Chin
POSTED: 23 Jul 2014 07:36
URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/inventor-says-hdb/1277692.html

Mr Yiap Hang Boon is claiming that the external clothes-drying racks of some HDB flats in Toa Payoh Central, Queenstown and Sengkang have infringed his patent.

SINGAPORE: A 54-year-old inventor is suing the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for infringing his patent for a clothes-drying rack, but the statutory board rejects the claim and is seeking to revoke the patent granted to him in 2004.

Mr Yiap Hang Boon, who set up a company that has since closed down called Sunpole Engineering and Trading, is claiming that the external clothes-drying racks of some HDB flats in Toa Payoh Central, Queenstown and Sengkang have infringed his patent.

But the HDB is seeking to hang his case out to dry. Its lawyers, Mr Darrell Low and Ms May Tan from Yusarn Audrey, will argue that the racks were the result of the HDB

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full-time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,953
  • May all beings be well and happy.
Re: Patent Infringement Cases
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2014, 10:48:00 PM »
Doctors claim Mindef infringed 'mobile clinic' patent
Wed, Feb 08, 2012 AsiaOne

Two doctors are suing the Government after alleging that the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) knowingly infringed their intellectual property by coming up with a mobile casualty station which they claim to have designed and patented.

Dr Mak Koon Hou, a 50-year-old cardiologist, and Dr Ting Choon Meng, a 52-year-old general practitioner who is chairman and chief executive of medical devices company HealthStats International, claim that Mindef's mobile clinic infringes on their patent of a "mobile first aid post" in idea and design specifications.

Mindef has denied the allegations and is claiming that the doctors' patent is not valid as the mobile clinic is not new, involved "no inventive step" and was "not capable of industrial application".

The Straits Times reported that the doctors started work on the "Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment", or Swift, medical station after the Sept 11, 2011 terrorists attacks in the United States.

They obtained local and international patents in 2005.

The 10-tonne truck opens up to become a resuscitation area equipped with surgical devices and lights, a suction system for removing blood, fluids and debris, and emergency life-saving devices.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force started using the vehicles in 2004 as it wanted a movable facility to stabilise casualties, prioritise treatment for victims and send them to the right place for treatment.

The doctors said SCDF paid them royalties for using their invention, which they say won praises from the United States Army and Singapore Technologies Kinetics.

Later, they formed MobileStats Technologies to market their mobile medical station.

MobileStats Technologies has issued a writ of summons against Mindef for infringing its Singapore patent. They are seeking damages and costs among other things.

Dr Ting told a local news source that they felt suing was the only way and that respect for intellectual property is very important.

The doctors also claim that they discussed the mobile station with officials over several meetings after Mindef approached them some years ago. However, nothing came out of it.

They told the Straits Times that they knew of Mindef's mobile casualty station after Mindef highlighted it in the run-up to National Day Parade in 2011 to improve its emergency response capabilities.

According to the English daily, Mindef's version has a ventilator, improved medical dressings to stop bleeding and an on-board water tank to wash wounds.

It can be sent to any emergency spot and be transformed into a medical clinic within 15 minutes. It can also treat up to 200 people for a variety of injuries.

When contacted, Mindef told The Straits Times that it is inappropriate for the ministry to make any statement as the court case is ongoing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Company drops copyright infringement lawsuit against Mindef
Posted on 08 January 2014 | 5,085 views

A company that sued the Government for patent infringement, claiming the Defence Ministry (Mindef) had copied its concept of a mobile emergency medical station, has dropped its claim, citing financial difficulties, reports The Straits Times.
 
MobileStats Technologies also loses the Singapore patent for the concept that it obtained in 2005, as it has abandoned its defence to Mindef's counterclaim that the patent is invalid, and will have to bear the legal costs of the defendant, represented by Wong & Leow LLC.
 
Hearing was set to resume for another 10 days yesterday. Instead, the case, which was heard for 21/2 days in July last year, came to an end after the High Court granted in chambers MobileStats' application to discontinue its suit and allowed Mindef's counterclaim.
 
MobileStats lawyer Gan Kam Yuin said her clients still believe their intellectual property (IP) rights had been infringed but do not have the financial resources to carry on.
 
MobileStats director Ting Choon Meng, 54, said the hearing took longer than expected, which meant rising costs. He said they already spent "a few hundred thousand dollars".
 
Dr Ting said he has lost confidence in Singapore as an IP hub and intends to resign as a board member of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore.
 
At issue was Mindef's mobile battalion casualty station.
 
Dr Ting, an adjunct professor at Nanyang Technological University, and Dr Mak Koon Hou, a cardiologist, alleged Mindef's stations, supplied by vendor Syntech Engineers, were similar to their invention.
 
The Government rejected the claim, arguing that the concept was not new and the British army used similar shelters during World War II. It counterclaimed, seeking a court order to revoke MobileStats' patent.
 
Mindef, which maintains the case is a commercial dispute between MobileStats and Syntech, said the vendor was prepared to challenge the validity of the patent in court.
 
"Mindef notes that the court has declared the patent is not valid, and there is no IP infringement," said its director of public affairs, Colonel Kenneth Liow.


PDF of the patents: http://is.gd/mstats_pat

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full-time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,953
  • May all beings be well and happy.
Re: Patent Infringement Cases
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2019, 07:09:57 PM »
A Steve Jobs rival who hit hard times in Singapore makes remarkable comeback with Super X-Fi
After settling a patent infringement case with Apple over a decade ago, Singaporean entrepreneur is back with new ‘holographic audio’ card
Thursday, 21 Feb, 2019

Sim Wong Hoo, chief executive officer of Creative Technology, is back with a new piece of audio technology called the Super X-Fi that he thinks will be a game changer. Photo: Bloomberg

Sim Wong Hoo, chief executive officer of Creative Technology, is back with a new piece of audio technology called the Super X-Fi that he thinks will be a game changer. Photo: BloombergSim Wong Hoo, chief executive officer of Creative Technology, is back with a new piece of audio technology called the Super X-Fi that he thinks will be a game changer.

On October 11, 2011, as tributes to Steve Jobs continued to pour in across the world, one man took out a US$16,000 full-page newspaper ad in Singapore to pay his respects to the Apple co-founder who had passed away. It said:

“Thank you for the great lessons. Thank you for the great products. Thank you for bringing a bit of us to the whole world."

It was signed: “Sim Wong Hoo, Chairman & CEO, Creative Technology Ltd."

It was intriguing to many who picked up the paper that morning. Sim had been a household name in Singapore for his Sound Blaster cards that brought audio to more than 400 million personal computers. He had also gone to war with Jobs over their portable music players. As hostility escalated in 2006, he sued Apple for patent infringements over the iPod.

Negotiations with Jobs were tense, Sim recalls, and his American adversary did most of the talking. In the end, Sim walked away with a US$100 million settlement. “Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Jobs said in a statement at the time.

Since then, the fortunes of the two companies have diverged dramatically. As the iPod became part of a remarkable business turnaround, it killed Sim’s MP3 player, which was created in 1999, two years before Apple’s device.

It also marked the beginning of Creative’s downfall. Shares traded on the Singapore Exchange fell from a record of S$64 (US$47) in March 2000 to hover around S$1 in 2017. The company voluntarily delisted its shares from the Nasdaq stock exchange in 2007.

Now, after many years and more than US$100 million of investment, Sim is finally back – with a new piece of audio technology called the Super X-Fi that he thinks will be a game changer.

The technology, which is available in headphones or as a headphone amplifier, makes sound appear like it’s coming from multiple speakers placed at a distance around the listener, rather than from the headphone itself. Creative calls it “holographic audio.”

Users take a picture of their face and ear shape on the Super X-Fi app to create a tailored listening experience. Creative researched how thousands of different people perceived sound – by, among other things, putting microphones in the subjects’ ears in a studio – and fed the results into an artificial intelligence engine that then predicts how others will hear sounds.

Creative’s SXFI AMP headphone amplifier is sold at US$150 and the SXFI AIR Bluetooth headphones retail at US$160.

“I have never been so excited in my life," Sim, now 63, said in an interview. “I’m literally breathless, evangelising what we have."

Shares of the company rose sevenfold in seven days from February 22 to March 5, boosted by news that Super X-Fi technology won the Best of CES Award 2018 in Las Vegas and positive analyst reports. The stock has since given up some of those gains, but the company’s market value has stabilised at about S$365 million, up from about S$80 million in 2017.

“It could be the next big thing," said Justin Tang, head of Asian research at United First Partners, which specialises in event-driven research. The company can explore licensing opportunities with phone makers, gaming companies and even carmakers in order to monetise it, he said.

Marc Tan, an analyst at KGI Securities in Singapore, said that while 3D audio is a “huge untapped market," Sim has many competitors, including Samsung Electronics’ Harman. “Creative will need to build up a large user base quickly in order to establish itself as the market leader," he said.

Sim said he is targeting 50 million Super X-Fi customers in two years, including free users. The company has struck partnerships, including with iVideoSmart, a Singapore-based video publishing platform with 75 million users.
Giant CES fair in Vegas shows US remains too big to ignore for Chinese tech firms even as trade war swirls

Creative is exploring ways to increase usage and make money from its invention. Last month, it said it’s ready to work with original equipment manufacturers to incorporate its headphone technology into their products. “My goal is to have every headphone user enjoy Super X-Fi," Sim said.

Still, Super X-Fi products aren’t expected to contribute significantly to overall revenue in the current quarter ending March 31, the company said last week. The net loss for the three months ended December 31 widened to US$4.9 million from US$4.2 million a year ago. Shares tumbled 11 per cent on Friday.

Sim was born in Singapore in 1955, the same year Jobs was born in San Francisco. When Sim was about 10, he took his eldest brother’s harmonica and began learning to play it by himself. That led to to his lifelong passion for music. He attended Ngee Ann Polytechnic and earned an electrical and electronics engineering diploma in 1975. He never got a university degree.

In 1981, Sim founded Creative Technology as a computer shop with his school friend Ng Kai Wa and US$6,000. They did whatever it took to keep the business going – computer classes, hardware repair and software development. Later, Creative began to build PC add-on boards, which included a graphics card that could display Chinese characters in 1982. In 1986, the company developed the world’s first multimedia, multilingual computer, the Cubic CT. Its audio interface led to the development of the Sound Blaster.

Creative debuted Sound Blasters at a computer trade show in Las Vegas in November 1989. Sim still recalls vividly the moment Michael Jackson, while on a tour of the exhibition, walked into his booth because it was the only one buzzing with sound. (In those days, PCs were quiet.) Fascinated to hear audio coming out of a PC, the King of Pop stayed for half an hour. “It was a good omen," Sim said.

In 1992, Creative became the first Singaporean company to list shares on Nasdaq. It applied for a dual listing in Singapore two years later. The Singapore initial public offering was oversubscribed and the shares surged as much as 16 percent on their debut. By 2000, Sim was Singapore’s youngest billionaire. Creative dominated the PC audio market until the 2000s before it lost ground to OEM PCs that were built with integrated sound cards.

In the following decade, Creative’s business could not keep pace with giants like Apple. Sim mostly dropped out of public view. “During the darkest period of Creative, I became enlightened. I decided that nothing is ever going to hurt me,” he said. “Ever since, I thrive on adversities.” He started running regularly since 2007, a habit that he says has made him fitter, helped him focus and overcome mental blocks.

Sim remained a bachelor all his life, and advises aspiring young entrepreneurs to steer clear of commitments like marriage and mortgages if they want to build a serious business. He is not against marriage, he says, but it’s a distraction and the financial burden would make it harder to take risks.

“We rarely see entrepreneurs like Sim who have the tenacity and determination to stay with their ideas against all odds," said Chua Kee Lock, managing partner at Vertex Ventures, an early investor in Creative Technology. “Can he pull off a comeback with the Super X-Fi? He has a decent chance."

Source: https://www.scmp.com/tech/gear/article/2187037/steve-jobs-rival-who-hit-hard-times-singapore-makes-remarkable-comeback

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full-time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,953
  • May all beings be well and happy.
Re: Patent Infringement Cases
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2020, 12:25:36 PM »
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $502.8 million in patent trial
The two companies have been battling in court for ten years
By Kim Lyons | Oct 31, 2020

A jury in Texas has ruled that Apple has to pay VirnetX $502.8 million in royalties for VPN on Demand, a feature that lets iOS users access a VPN connection, Bloomberg reported. The two companies have been involved in a legal battle for ten years, with VirnetX— sometimes referred to as a patent troll — arguing that Apple’s VPN on Demand and FaceTime use its technology.

Apple said in a statement it plans to appeal the decision: “This case has been going on for over a decade, with patents that are unrelated to the core operations of our products and have been found to be invalid by the patent office. Cases like this only serve to stifle innovation and harm consumers.”

Earlier this year, a US appeals court rejected Apple’s request to reconsider a split decision ruling that found it infringed on VirnetX patents. The ongoing court fight has gone back and forth, with a federal court in Texas ordering Apple in 2018 to pay VirnetX $502.6 million for violating four patents relating to internet-based communications, which refers to the underlying technology behind Apple’s FaceTime and iMessage.

But in November 2019, a three-judge panel voided that $502.6 million amount. However, the judges did not void a jury’s finding that some older iPhone models infringed two VirnetX patents. It was that finding that Apple sought to have the appeals court reconsider.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/31/21543315/apple-ordered-pay-virnetx-patent-troll-facetime-vpn




Jury: Apple must pay $626 million to patent troll VirnetX
Patent-based company wins a 9-figure verdict in East Texas. Is it the last?
Joe Mullin | 2/4/2016

An East Texas jury has ruled that Apple must pay patent-holding company VirnetX $625.6 million for infringing four patents. It's a massive verdict for VirnetX, a company that has no products and makes its money solely through patent litigation.

The verdict form (PDF) shows the jury found Apple infringed on every patent claim that was at issue. The first question was how much Apple should pay for infringement related to two VirnetX patents that it had already been ruled to infringe, and the jury held Apple should pay $334.9 million. The panel also found in VirnetX's favor on other, disputed patent claims, and ordered Apple to pay another $290.7 million for infringing those. The accused products included Apple's VPN on Demand, FaceTime, and the iMessage service.

The VirnetX v. Apple showdown may be one of the last of its kind in which a "patent troll"-style company is able to wrest a nine-figure jury verdict from a tech company. Patent trolling still abounds and is increasingly concentrated in East Texas. But the ability to get huge verdicts has been dampened by changes in case-law, particularly the Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision that made it easier for defendants to get software patents thrown out of court.

Court records from the VirnetX trial show that the jury began deliberating after 4:00pm Central Time on Tuesday, and they left just after 5:00pm. They resumed deliberations Wednesday, and the verdict showed up in the public courts database some time after 3:00pm Central Time.

The VirnetX trial is partly a do-over of a 2012 jury trial in which VirnetX won $368 million in damages. In addition to the $368 million, VirnetX was on the verge of getting an even bigger reward: a running royalty of nearly one percent of iPhone and iPad revenue. However, both the $368 million and the ongoing royalty were overturned on appeal.

VirnetX has had some big wins in the past. Its original patent attack on Microsoft ended in a $200 million settlement. Microsoft later paid $23 million to end claims that Skype also infringed VirnetX patents. VirnetX sued Cisco, but Cisco took the case to a jury trial and prevailed.

VirnetX's patents (1, 2, 3, 4) originated at a company called Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. VirnetX has been saying for years it has plans to market various products, but for the time being, its income comes from licensing patents. It has 14 employees and leases a small office suite in Zephyr Cove, Nevada, for $5,000 a month, according to its most recent yearly financial statement.

VirnetX stock is up substantially in after-hours trading. The VHC stock traded at $3.60 late Tuesday and is trading at $8.80 per share at press time. Apple stock didn't budge significantly.

Going forward, VirnetX may seek to impose a "running royalty" on Apple products, like it won last time. Meanwhile, Apple is surely looking to appeal.

“We are thankful for the jurors’ hard work and attention in this case, and for reaching a just verdict,” said VirnetX lawyer Jason Cassady in an e-mailed statement. “The jury saw what we have been saying all along: Apple has been infringing VirnetX’s patented technology for years.”

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/jury-apple-must-pay-626-million-to-patent-troll-virnetx/

Reference 1: http://ia600701.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.txed.140694/gov.uscourts.txed.140694.425.0.pdf
Cache 1: http://edusg.us/zip/gov.uscourts.txed.140694.425.0.pdf

Reference 2: US6502135, "Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability", https://patents.google.com/patent/US6502135

Reference 2: US7418504, "Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names", https://patents.google.com/patent/US7418504

Reference 3: US7490151, "Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request", https://patents.google.com/patent/US7490151

Reference 4: US7921211, "Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names", https://patents.google.com/patent/US7921211

Offline Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full-time Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,953
  • May all beings be well and happy.
Re: Patent Infringement Cases
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2025, 01:24:26 PM »
Singapore inventor wins High Court suit against rivals who passed off similar doors as his design
Dec 17, 2025

[SINGAPORE] A Singapore inventor behind a space-saving door system widely used in HDB flats and local homes has succeeded in a High Court case, with business rivals found to have passed off similar doors as his design.

The lawsuit in the High Court was brought by Ng Say Keong, a sole proprietor in the business of designing, marketing and installing doors and door-related products in Singapore. He registered his business S & K Solid Wood Doors in 2006.

In 2014, he applied for a Singapore patent for a slide-and-swing door system he invented to maximise space in compact homes. The patent was granted in 2015, and he named the product “SK Door” after the initials of his name.

Ng said in court papers that he has sold an estimated 350,000 space-saving SK doors in Singapore. His business has grown substantially over the years, with net profit rising from S$24,993 in 2019 to S$130,795 in 2022. His customers include interior designers, contractors, private developers and HDB.

He said that in July 2023, a relative of an existing customer installed slide-swing doors bought from Jia Le Aluminium and 9 Power Aluminium & Glass, and workers who installed the doors allegedly identified themselves as being from “SK Doors”.

Jia Le was registered in Singapore in 2017 and 9 Power in 2018. They share the same registered address as well as the same shareholders and directors, Koh Thiam Hock and Lim Swee Kiat. Both men have also been directors and shareholders of a Malaysia-registered company, Supreme Door Aluminium & Glass, since February 2023.

The Malaysian company, registered in Johor Bahru and incorporated on Mar 8, 2021, by Ng’s former employee Goh Song Guan, manufactures a similar slide-and-swing door known as “SD Door”.

Patents for the SD Door were filed in Malaysia and Singapore, and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore granted it a patent on Nov 1, 2024. These doors are sold in Singapore by Jia Le and 9 Power.

When Ng inspected the doors installed at the home of his customer’s relative, he found that they were not his products.

To investigate further, he hired a private investigator to conduct a “trap purchase” at Jia Le and 9 Power’s showroom. The investigator was shown a slide-and-swing door that was referred to as an SK door. A door was eventually purchased and delivered at a discounted rate. Upon inspection, Ng confirmed that it was not one of his patented doors.

Ng sued Jia Le and 9 Power in the High Court in March 2024, accusing them of infringing his patent and passing off their products as SK doors.

In response, Jia Le and 9 Power denied the allegations. They disputed that their staff had identified themselves as being from “SK Doors” and challenged the validity of Ng’s patent.

The High Court case was heard over five days in May and July.

In a written judgment issued on Dec 5, Justice Dedar Singh Gill ruled that Jia Le and 9 Power had passed off SD doors as SK doors. “The evidence establishes that the defendants engaged in intentional acts of passing off,” he said.

A key part of his decision turned on the private investigator’s visit to the defendants’ showroom on Aug 1, 2023, where he was shown an SK door on display.

Justice Gill said: “The SK door was installed at their showroom... and there were various materials (for example, dark wood grain finish, black marble finish) with numerical labels plastered on the SK door. The presence of separately labelled materials on the door strongly suggests that it was being used as a sample rather than a mere toilet door.”

Jia Le and 9 Power did not dispute that there was an SK door in the showroom.

Giving evidence, Koh explained that the SK door was leftover stock from the time when the companies had sold Ng’s products, and that it had been “innocently” used as a toilet door.

“This explanation does not withstand scrutiny,” Justice Gill said.

He added: “If the SK door was merely leftover stock used as a toilet door, there would be no reason for the defendants to plaster various material samples with numerical labels on it. The defendants had by then stopped selling SK doors for at least half a year. It would have been logical for them to use an SD door as the toilet door. Curiously, despite the office being a showroom, they did not retain even one sample of an SD door.

“The only cogent explanation for the defendants’ conduct is that they were deliberately attempting to mislead customers into thinking that the doors they sold were SK doors.”

Justice Gill added that Ng had satisfied all three elements required to establish passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. “(The) defendants do not dispute that Ng has acquired goodwill in the business relating to SK doors,” the judge said. “(The) evidence establishes that the SK name has acquired distinctiveness in Singapore’s door industry through Ng’s extensive use over nearly two decades.”

On misrepresentation, the court found that the defendants’ conduct created a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.

On damage, Justice Gill said: “The fact that the goods are in direct competition with one another is a highly relevant consideration... Given that both parties deal in doors, I am persuaded that the damage element of the passing-off inquiry is established.”

However, while Ng succeeded on the passing-off claim, the court rejected his separate allegation of patent infringement. After analysing the technical design of both products, Justice Gill accepted the opinion of a jointly appointed expert witness that the defendants’ SD Door lacked a key mechanical feature found in the SK Door, and hence did not infringe the patent.

Still, while the slide-and-swing door inventor has won a crucial round in the unusual legal dispute, the case is not yet over.

Following the finding that Jia Le and 9 Power are liable for passing off, both sides are expected to return to court for a further hearing in 2026 to assess the damages for the harm Ng suffered.

Ng was represented by lawyers Mitchel Chua Yung Guang, Annie Dai Jingwen and Ng Chee Weng from Gateway Law Corporation. Jia Le and 9 Power were represented by Chow Weng Weng of Chow Ng Partnership. THE STRAITS TIMES

Source: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/singapore-inventor-wins-high-court-suit-against-rivals-who-passed-similar-doors-his-design

Archive: https://archive.fo/i0x3S


Case law: [2025] SGHC 243 Ng Say Keong (trading as S & K Solid Wood Doors) v Jia Le Aluminium Pte Ltd and another

SK Door patent (claimant): SG10201401033R Sliding Door System and the Method of Operating the Same
Source: https://digitalhub.ipos.gov.sg/FAMN/eservice/IP4SG/CM_UrlRewrite?p=922e9216-7b09-4159-8190-f7becd9845c7

SD Door patent (defendant): SG10202108880Q A Combination Of Slide Swing Door
https://digitalhub.ipos.gov.sg/FAMN/eservice/IP4SG/CM_UrlRewrite?p=cfbd7c30-13e0-4d01-918c-a2cb76f7a20e
Archive: https://archive.fo/N2QIF