Contour Optik v Pearl's Optical: Patent Infringement, Spectacle Frames, Magnetic Clip-ons
Contour Optik Inc, Dalmink Fashion Products 1989 Pte Ltd, and Richard Chao sued Pearl's Optical Co Pte Ltd, Peng Lian Trading Co, AZ Optics Centre, and Lee Meng Eyewear Fashion Centre in the High Court of Singapore, alleging patent infringement of spectacle frames with magnetic clip-ons. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin JC, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding some patents invalid and the threats of infringement groundless. The court ordered an inquiry into damages for groundless threats and directed the plaintiffs to pay costs. The court also ordered that the 60169 Patent shall be revoked unless the specification is amended under s 83 to the satisfaction of the Registrar within six months of this judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Contour Optik sued Pearl's Optical for patent infringement related to magnetic clip-on spectacle frames. The court dismissed the claims and found groundless threats.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contour Optik Inc | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Lost | Steven Seah, Kelvin Tan |
| Dalmink Fashion Products 1989 Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Lost | Steven Seah, Kelvin Tan |
| Chao Richard Hao-Chih | Plaintiff | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Lost | Steven Seah, Kelvin Tan |
| Pearl's Optical Co Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Won | Wong Hur Yuin |
| Peng Lian Trading Co | Defendant | Partnership | Claims Dismissed | Won | Alban Kang, Chow Kin Wah, Koh Chia Ling |
| AZ Optics Centre | Defendant | Other | Claims Dismissed | Won | Alban Kang, Chow Kin Wah, Koh Chia Ling |
| Lee Meng Eyewear Fashion Centre | Defendant | Other | Claims Dismissed | Won | Wong Siew Hong, Selvi Singaram |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Steven Seah | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Kelvin Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Wong Hur Yuin | Wee Swee Teow & Co |
| Alban Kang | Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva |
| Chow Kin Wah | Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva |
| Koh Chia Ling | Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva |
| Wong Siew Hong | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Selvi Singaram | Infinitus Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Contour Optik is the assignee of the 47151 Patent and the proprietor of the 60169 Patent.
- Dalmink is the exclusive licensee of the 47151 Patent and the 60169 Patent.
- The 47151 Patent relates to spectacle frames with temple-mounted magnetic clip-ons.
- The 60169 Patent relates to spectacle frames with bridge-mounted magnetic clip-ons.
- Pearl’s Optical and Peng Lian were accused of infringing both patents.
- AZ Optics and Lee Meng were accused of infringing the 60169 Patent.
- The Plaintiffs applied for a patent under s 29(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Contour Optik Inc and Others v Pearl's Optical Co Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 147/2000, 371/2001, [2002] SGHC 238
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Licence and distribution agreement for 47151 Patent dated | |
| Licence and distribution agreement for 60169 Patent dated | |
| US 054 Patent granted | |
| 47151 Patent granted | |
| Pearl’s Optical sold Gekko spectacle frame | |
| 60169 Patent granted | |
| Peng Lian sold Giacoma Puccini spectacle frames to Honour Optical Contact Lens Centre | |
| Pearl’s Optical sold Giacoma Puccini spectacle frame | |
| Suit commenced | |
| Assignment of 47151 Patent recorded | |
| Recordal of licence for 47151 Patent done | |
| Agreement registered with the Registry of Patents | |
| Lee Meng sold Ferra spectacle frame | |
| AZ Optics sold Arcadia spectacle frame | |
| Suit No 147 of 2000 and Suit No 371 of 2001 were consolidated by order of Court | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment given |
7. Legal Issues
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove infringement by most defendants and that some patents were invalid.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of patent
- Scope of patent claims
- Acts of infringement
- Validity of Patent
- Outcome: The court found that some claims of the 47151 Patent lacked novelty and that the 60169 Patent was registered upon a misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Novelty
- Inventive step
- Misrepresentation
- Groundless Threats
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs made groundless threats of infringement proceedings against the Defendants.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of patent validity
- Injunction against infringement
- Delivery up or destruction of infringing products
- Damages or account of profits
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
- Groundless Threats of Infringement Proceedings
10. Practice Areas
- Patent Infringement
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Eyewear
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1982] RPC 183 | N/A | Cited for the purposive construction of patent specifications. |
| Bean Innovations Pte Ltd & Anor v Flexon (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited for the limitations to the purposive approach in construing patent claims. |
| Socit Technique de Pulverisation STEP v Emson Europe | N/A | Yes | [1993] RPC 513 | N/A | Cited as caution against blurring the purposive construction approach and the re-writing of a claim |
| Brugger v Medicaid | N/A | Yes | [1996] RPC 635 | N/A | Cited as caution against blurring the purposive construction approach and the re-writing of a claim |
| Rotocrop International v Genbourne | N/A | Yes | [1982] FSR 241 | N/A | Cited as caution against blurring the purposive construction approach and the re-writing of a claim |
| Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] RPC 133 | N/A | Cited for the proper approach to the construction of a patent under English law |
| Electric and Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1939] 56 RPC 23 | N/A | Cited for the function of the claims to define clearly and with precision the monopoly claimed |
| Brooks v Steele and Currie | N/A | Yes | (1896) 13 RPC 46 | N/A | Cited for the function of an expert witness |
| British Celanese Ltd v. Courtalds Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1935) 52 RPC 171 | N/A | Cited for the role of an expert witness |
| Joseph Crosfield & Sons Ltd v. Techno-Chemical Laboratories Ltd | N/A | Yes | 30 RPC 297 | N/A | Cited for the role of an expert witness |
| General Tire v Firestone | N/A | Yes | [1972] RPC 457 | N/A | Cited for the test for determining the novelty in a patent |
| Hamilton E. Harwood and another v Director of Great Northern Railway Company | N/A | Yes | [1865] 11 ER 1488 | N/A | Cited for the principle that it is not an inventive step if the alleged invention is merely a new use of a known contrivance or method. |
| Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited for the test for inventiveness |
| Genentech Inc`s Patent | N/A | Yes | [1989] RPC 147 | N/A | Cited for the test for inventiveness |
| Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1985] RPC 59 | N/A | Cited for the four steps to be taken in considering whether something involves an inventive step (or obviousness) |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 40A, r 3(2) of the Rules of Court |
| r 41 of the Patents Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Patents Act | Singapore |
| Section 67 of the Patents Act | Singapore |
| Section 69(1) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 75 of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 77 of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 13(1) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 14 of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 15 of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 29(1)(c) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 29(12) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 80(1)(f) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 80(5) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 91(1) of the Act | Singapore |
| Section 17(2) of the Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Spectacle frames
- Magnetic clip-ons
- Patent infringement
- Novelty
- Inventive step
- Groundless threats
- Temple-mounted
- Bridge-mounted
- Priority date
- Misrepresentation
15.2 Keywords
- Patent
- Infringement
- Spectacles
- Magnetic
- Clip-on
- Validity
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Patent Law
- Intellectual Property
- Patent Infringement
17. Areas of Law
- Patent Law
- Intellectual Property Law