Inphosoft Pte Ltd v Ho Jin Kiat: Copyright Infringement & Search Order Dispute

Inphosoft Pte Ltd, a software company, sued Ho Jin Kiat and his company for copyright infringement, alleging that they used Inphosoft's copyrighted software to service a former client. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, set aside a search order obtained by Inphosoft due to insufficient evidence and material non-disclosure but granted an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from reproducing or distributing the software until trial. The proposed intervener's application for the return of his hard disk was also allowed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The court allowed the defendants’ application to set aside the search order and granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Software company Inphosoft sued Ho Jin Kiat for copyright infringement. The court set aside the search order but granted an interim injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Inphosoft Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationInterim Injunction GrantedPartial
Ho Jin KiatDefendantIndividualApplication to set aside Search Order AllowedWon
Foo Guowei DerekOtherIndividualApplication for return of black box allowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Inphosoft claimed copyright ownership of “Content Management System” (CMS) and “Mobile Presentation System” (MPS).
  2. Ho Jin Kiat, the 1st defendant, was a shareholder and director of Inphosoft until May 23, 2008.
  3. On June 6, 2008, Ho Jin Kiat incorporated the 2nd defendant company.
  4. The 2nd defendant was servicing Inphosoft’s former Indonesian client, PT. Asia Quattro Net (AQN).
  5. In September 2008, Inphosoft learned that the 1st defendant was servicing the Indonesian client through the 2nd defendant using Inphosoft’s copyrighted software.
  6. The court granted a search order on October 21, 2008, and it was executed on October 23, 2008, at the 2nd defendant’s premises.
  7. The plaintiff did not make full and frank disclosure at the ex parte hearing.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Inphosoft Pte Ltd v Ho Jin Kiat and another (Foo Guowei Derek, non-party), Suit 741/2008, SUM 4795/2008, 4928/2008, 5480/2008, [2009] SGHC 152

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Inphosoft Pte Ltd incorporated.
Key employee of Inphosoft Pte Ltd left the company.
Resolution passed to remove the 1st defendant from Inphosoft’s board.
The 1st defendant incorporated the 2nd defendant company.
Key employee of Inphosoft Pte Ltd left the company.
Inphosoft sold all their shares in its subsidiary MConnected Pte Ltd to Joan Holdings Pte Ltd.
Inphosoft learned that the 1st defendant was servicing the Indonesian client through the 2nd defendant using the plaintiff’s copyrighted software.
Court granted a search order.
Search order was executed at the 2nd defendant’s premises.
The defendants filed Summons No 4795 of 2008 to set aside the search order.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court granted an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from reproducing and distributing any part of the software, CMS and MPS, and from otherwise infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in CMS or MPS without the licence of the plaintiff until the trial.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Setting Aside Search Order
    • Outcome: The court allowed the defendants’ application to set aside the Search Order.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Interim Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications
  • Software

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)Court of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR 901SingaporeCited for the four questions that must be answered in determining whether a search order would be granted.
Computerland Corp v Yew Seng Computers Pte LtdN/AYes[1991] SLR 247SingaporeCited to emphasize the draconian nature of a search order and the need to weigh the plaintiff's rights against the violation of the defendant's privacy.
Lock International Plc v Beswick & OthersN/AYes[1989] 1 WLR 1268N/ACited to highlight that even with evidence of wrongdoing, a search order should not be granted unless there is evidence that the defendants had a propensity to destroy the evidence.
Expanded Metal Manufacturing Pte Ltd and Another v Expanded Metal Co LtdN/AYes[1995] 1 SLR 673SingaporeCited for the principle that a search order would be discharged if the terms are not followed and prejudice is caused to the defendant.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No 1)N/AYes[1975] AC 396N/ACited for the guidelines in an application for an interim injunction.
Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 SLR 621SingaporeCited for the principle that once the plaintiff has shown sufficient resemblance, the burden shifts to the defendants.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Content Management System
  • Mobile Presentation System
  • Search Order
  • Interim Injunction
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Prima Facie Case
  • Anton Piller Order
  • Material Non-Disclosure

15.2 Keywords

  • copyright
  • infringement
  • search order
  • injunction
  • software
  • CMS
  • MPS

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Copyright
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions