Flamelite v Lam Heng Chung: Copyright Infringement & Breach of Confidence in Fire-Rated Glass Door Framing System

In Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Lam Heng Chung and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims of copyright infringement and breach of confidence related to a framing system for fire-rated glass doors and screens. Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd, Flametech (S) Pte Ltd, and Glaverbel S A sued Lam Heng Chung, Sim Bee Hoon, Swissflame Pte Ltd, and Wu Kum Fai, alleging that the defendants infringed on their copyright and misused confidential information. The court, presided over by MPH Rubin J, dismissed all claims, finding no evidence of copyright infringement or breach of confidence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Flamelite sues Lam Heng Chung for copyright infringement and breach of confidence regarding a fire-rated glass door framing system. The court dismissed the claims.

1.7 Decision Date

30 March 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Steven Seah of Drew & Napier Eric Chew of Drew & Napier
Lam Heng Chung	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Wong Siew Hong of Yeo Wong & Thian Lim Hsiao Kang of Yeo Wong & Thian
Swissflame Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Wong Siew Hong of Yeo Wong & Thian Lim Hsiao Kang of Yeo Wong & Thian
Flametech (S) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Steven Seah of Drew & Napier Eric Chew of Drew & Napier
Glaverbel S A	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Steven Seah of Drew & Napier Eric Chew of Drew & Napier
Sim Bee Hoon	Defendant	Individual	Action Discontinued	Withdrawn	Wong Siew Hong of Yeo Wong & Thian Lim Hsiao Kang of Yeo Wong & Thian
Wu Kum Fai	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Wong Siew Hong of Yeo Wong & Thian Lim Hsiao Kang of Yeo Wong & Thian

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
MPH Rubin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Steven Seah	Drew & Napier
Eric Chew	Drew & Napier
Wong Siew Hong	Yeo Wong & Thian
Lim Hsiao Kang	Yeo Wong & Thian

4. Facts

The plaintiffs claimed copyright infringement of their fire-rated glass door framing system sketches.
The plaintiffs also claimed breach of confidence by former sub-contractor and employee.
The defendants argued the framing system was a non-proprietary method in common use.
The third plaintiff, Glaverbel, claimed copyright infringement of their framing system design.
The first plaintiff underwrote the third plaintiff's costs of the action.
The plaintiffs' preliminary sketches were lost; they relied on later drawings as evidence.
The fourth defendant was a former employee of the first plaintiff and later worked for the third defendant.

5. Formal Citations

Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Lam Heng Chung and Others, Suit 2352/1998, [2001] SGHC 66

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1991-02-14	Incorporation of the 2nd Plaintiff
1992-11-19	4th Defendant employed by the 1st Plaintiff
1994-04-15	2nd Plaintiff assigned copyright to the 1st Plaintiff
1994-06-30	1st Plaintiff terminated services of KDM
1994-06-30	4th Defendant's employment terminated
1994-08-06	1st and 2nd Defendants incorporated the 3rd Defendant
1995-09-12	SISIR Test Report No. G168640 dated
1995-11-03	SISIR Test Report No. G169176 dated
1997-01-29	Warrington Fire Research Group Report WFRS No. SC1535 dated
1997-01-29	Warrington Fire Research Group Report WFRS No. SC1635 dated
2001-03-31	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants did not infringe the plaintiffs' copyright.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Copying of idea versus expression
  - Substantial similarity
  - Non-expert defense
Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants did not breach any obligation of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Confidentiality of information
  - Obligation of confidence
  - Unauthorised use of information

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Copyright Infringement
Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

Intellectual Property Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Construction Disputes

11. Industries

Construction
Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1979] RPC 551	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Johnstone Safety Limited v Peter Cook (Int) PLC And Another	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1990) FSR 161	England and Wales	Cited to support the principle that copyright does not prevent the use of functional ideas incorporated in products.
Harman Pictures N V v Osborne	N/A	Yes	[1967] 1 WLR 723	N/A	Cited for the principle that copyright protects the particular form of expression, not the underlying idea.
Baumann v Fussell	N/A	Yes	[1978] RPC 485	N/A	Cited to support the principle that the fact that the plaintiffs work might have been the chief prod or inspiration for the defendants output will not of itself render the defendants work an infringement
Johnstone Safety Limited v Peter Cook (Int) PLC And Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] FSR 161	England and Wales	Cited to support the principle that the plaintiffs had no right to prevent the use of functional ideas incorporated in the traffic cones which they produced.
Catnic Components Limited And Another v Hill & Smith Limited	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] RPC 183	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that what is protected is the skill and labour devoted to making the artistic work not the skill and labour devoted to developing some idea or invention communicated or depicted by the artistic work.
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc & Others	N/A	Yes	[1989] 1 AC 217	N/A	Approved the principle that what is protected is the skill and labour devoted to making the artistic work not the skill and labour devoted to developing some idea or invention communicated or depicted by the artistic work.
Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall and Another	N/A	Yes	(1990) 18 IPR 481	N/A	Cited for the principle that the simpler and more commonplace the copyright drawing the more closely must the alleged infringer adhere to it in order for liability to exist
CMI-Centers For Medical Innovation GMBH And Anor v Phytopharm PLC	N/A	Yes	[1999] FSR 235	N/A	Cited for the test to be applied in dealing with claims founded on breach of confidence
Giles v Thomson	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 142	N/A	Cited for the guidelines provided in determining whether an agreement amounts to maintenance
Chiarapurk Jack & Ors v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd & Anor	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 285	Singapore	Reliance is placed on the case of Chiarapurk Jack & Ors v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd & Anor [1993] 3 SLR 285.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap. 63)	Singapore
Patents Act (Cap 221)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Fire-rated glass doors
Framing system
Copyright infringement
Breach of confidence
Non-expert defence
Preliminary sketches
Shop drawings
Calcium silicate boards
Steel capping
Intumescent strips

15.2 Keywords

Copyright infringement
Breach of confidence
Fire-rated glass doors
Framing system
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Copyrights	90
Breach of Confidence	85
Fire-rated glass doors	60
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Copyright
Confidentiality
Construction
Intellectual Property