Trek Technology v FE Global: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Patent Infringement Appeal
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd against the decision to allow Mr. Mark Fortescue Platts-Mills QC to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor for FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd, Electec Pte Ltd, and M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd in Civil Appeals Nos 127 of 2004 and 70 of 2005, concerning a patent infringement dispute. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the issues were not of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require the admission of a Queen’s Counsel, as local counsel should be well able to handle the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the ad hoc admission of a Queen's Counsel in a patent infringement case. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the competence of the local Bar.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Electec Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Ang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Platts-Mills applied for ad hoc admission to represent respondents in patent appeals.
- The judge granted the application for admission.
- The appellant appealed against the decision to allow the admission.
- The respondents commenced an action against Trek Technology for groundless threats of infringement proceedings.
- The appellant commenced Suit No 609 of 2002 against the respondents, alleging patent infringement.
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding local counsel competent to handle the issues.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Platts-Mills Mark Fortescue QC, CA 103/2005, [2005] SGCA 57
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondents commenced action against Trek Technology in Suit No 604 of 2002 | |
| Appellant commenced Suit No 609 of 2002 against the respondents | |
| Consolidated actions heard before Lai Kew Chai J | |
| Consolidated actions heard before Lai Kew Chai J | |
| Judgment in the consolidated actions was pronounced in favour of the appellant | |
| Respondents filed appeals against Lai J’s decision | |
| Appeal allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the issues were not of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require the admission of a Queen’s Counsel.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Difficulty and complexity of the case
- Availability and calibre of local counsel
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on patent infringement, as the appeal concerned the admission of a Queen's Counsel.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Construction of patent claims
- Amendment of patent after grant
- Liability of foreign manufacturer for patent infringement
8. Remedies Sought
- Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Revocation of Patent
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
- Groundless Threats of Infringement Proceedings
10. Practice Areas
- Admission to the Bar
- Patent Infringement Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] RPC 9 | United Kingdom | Cited for guidance on how the claims of the Patent should be construed. |
| Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 400 | Singapore | Cited for the object of the amendment to the Legal Profession Act to promote the development of the local Bar. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v AG | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the objective of the amendment to help the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local bar. |
| Re Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 575 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the objective of the amendment to help the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local bar. |
| Re Gyles QC | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 695 | Singapore | Cited for the need to consider the ability and availability of local counsel when measuring the degree of difficulty and complexity of the case. |
| Re Flint Charles John Raffles QC | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 276 | Singapore | Cited for the view that the local Bar has matured and is acquitting itself commendably. |
| Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent infringement case argued entirely by local counsel. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent infringement case argued entirely by local counsel. |
| Bean Innovations Pte Ltd v Flexon (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent infringement case argued entirely by local counsel. |
| Peng Lian Trading Co v Contour Optik Inc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 560 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent infringement case argued entirely by local counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Queen's Counsel
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Patent Infringement
- Legal Profession Act
- Difficulty and Complexity
- Local Bar
- Patent
- Hyperlink
- Offer to Dispose
15.2 Keywords
- Queen's Counsel
- Patent Infringement
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Legal Profession Act
- Ad Hoc Admission
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ad Hoc Admission | 90 |
| Patent Law | 70 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 60 |
| Patent Amendments | 40 |
| Affidavits | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Procedure