Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd: Patent Infringement & Validity of Device for Inspecting Electronic Components

In the High Court of Singapore, Muhlbauer AG, a German company, sued Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd for patent infringement related to a 'Device for Inspecting and Rotating Electronic Components'. Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity and revocation of the patent, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step. The court, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, ruled in favor of Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd, declaring Muhlbauer AG's patent invalid and dismissing the infringement claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Patent infringement suit. Court declared Muhlbauer AG's patent invalid due to lack of novelty and inventive step, favoring Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Mühlbauer AGPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Manufacturing Integration Technology LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenneth TanGateway Law Corporation
Max Ng Chee WengGateway Law Corporation
Colin Phan Siang LoongGateway Law Corporation
Wong Yao FongGateway Law Corporation
Foo Maw ShenRodyk & Davidson LLP
Koh Kia JengRodyk & Davidson LLP
Calvin LimRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Muhlbauer AG claimed Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd infringed its patent for a device inspecting and rotating electronic components.
  2. Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd counterclaimed, asserting the patent was invalid due to lack of novelty and inventive step.
  3. The defendant's machine, CAERUS, was acknowledged to infringe the patent if the patent was valid.
  4. The defendant relied on prior art, including the ASA Patent, Matsushita Patent, National Semiconductor Patent, Shinkawa Patent, and ASA's AFC 800.
  5. The ASA Patent disclosed two pick-up heads for flip chips arranged opposite each other at a pivot point.
  6. The court found the ASA Patent anticipated the key concepts in the plaintiff's patent.
  7. The defendant's expert had personal knowledge of the state of the art at the material time.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd, Suit 80/2007, [2009] SGHC 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Advanced Systems Automation Limited’s Singapore patent number 104292 filed
Plaintiff's priority date
Plaintiff filed Singapore patent number 117982
Plaintiff's threat of infringement contained in its letter
Suit 80/2007 filed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Patent Infringement
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on infringement because the patent was deemed invalid.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Patent Validity
    • Outcome: The court declared the plaintiff's patent invalid due to lack of novelty and inventive step.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of Novelty
      • Lack of Inventive Step
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 3 SLR 389
      • [2008] 1 SLR 335
      • [1985] RPC 59
  3. Unjustifiable Threat of Patent Infringement
    • Outcome: The court declared the plaintiff's threat of infringement unjustifiable.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Declaration of Patent Invalidity
  3. Revocation of Patent
  4. Damages for Unjustifiable Threat of Infringement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Patent Infringement
  • Declaration of Patent Invalidity

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Patent Litigation

11. Industries

  • Semiconductor
  • Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd (No. 2)High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR 389SingaporeCited for guiding principles on deciding the issue of novelty in patent law.
First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR 335SingaporeCited for adopting the four-step test laid down in Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd for assessing inventive step.
Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1985] RPC 59England and WalesCited for the four-step test for assessing inventive step.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 1021SingaporeCited to illustrate that commercial success alone is not conclusive evidence of novelty or inventive step.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 14(1) and (2) of the Patents ActSingapore
s 15 of the Patents ActSingapore
s 13(1) of the Patents ActSingapore
s 77(1) of the Patents ActSingapore
s 77(3) of the Patents ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Patent
  • Flip Chip
  • Pick Up Head
  • Pivoting Part
  • Optical Inspection
  • Novelty
  • Inventive Step
  • Prior Art
  • Through Opening
  • Vision Inspection System

15.2 Keywords

  • Patent Infringement
  • Patent Validity
  • Flip Chip Technology
  • Semiconductor Manufacturing
  • Intellectual Property
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Patents95
Intellectual Property Law80
Patent Infringement70
Patent Validity60
Commercial Disputes30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Patent Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Engineering