Martek v Cargill: Patent Revocation Appeal - Adducing Further Evidence
Martek Biosciences Corp appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss its application to adduce further evidence in its appeal against the revocation of its Singapore patent P-No 42669 by the Deputy Registrar of Patents and the Principal Assistant Registrar of Patents. The patent concerns a method for producing arachidonic acid (ARA) in triglyceride form for use in infant formula. Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd had successfully argued for the patent's revocation based on lack of inventiveness. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, dismissed Martek's appeal, finding a lack of diligence in securing the evidence and that the justice of the case did not favor Martek.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Martek's appeal to adduce further evidence in its patent revocation case against Cargill was dismissed. The court found Martek lacked diligence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Martek Biosciences Corp | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Martek's patent (P-No 42669) relates to a method for producing arachidonic acid (ARA) in triglyceride form for use in infant formula.
- Cargill applied to have the patent revoked on the ground that it lacked novelty or inventiveness.
- The Tribunal revoked the patent for lack of inventiveness, relying partly on prior art D4a.
- Martek sought to adduce further evidence relating to a repeat of an experiment described in prior art D4a.
- Martek claimed the experiment results showed the oil produced had an ARA content of less than 50%, contradicting D4a's claim.
- The High Court dismissed Martek's application to adduce further evidence.
- Martek appealed the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 55 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing before the Tribunal began | |
| Hearing before the Tribunal ended | |
| Tribunal released its written decision revoking the Patent | |
| Martek filed Originating Summons No 1418 of 2009 | |
| Martek filed Summons No 234 of 2010 requesting leave to adduce further evidence | |
| Judge dismissed the Interlocutory Application | |
| Martek's solicitors requested leave to make further arguments | |
| Hearing before the Court of Appeal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Further Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant did not meet the requirements for adducing further evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Due diligence in obtaining evidence
- Impact of evidence on the case
- Credibility of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- Patent Revocation
- Outcome: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to revoke the patent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Lack of inventiveness
- Prior art
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to adduce further evidence
- Reversal of patent revocation
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against Patent Revocation
10. Practice Areas
- Patent Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Biotechnology
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Established the test for adducing further evidence in an appeal. |
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Applied the Ladd v Marshall test. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392 | Singapore | Held that a judge in chambers hearing an appeal from a registrar's decision exercised a confirmatory jurisdiction and not an appellate jurisdiction, and thus had the discretion to admit further evidence. |
| WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133 | Singapore | Held that in an appeal before a judge in chambers where the hearing at first instance did not possess the characteristics of a trial, the party seeking leave to adduce further evidence might still have to persuade the judge hearing the appeal that he had satisfied all three of the conditions set out in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Hunt-Wesson Inc’s Trade Mark Application | N/A | Yes | [1996] RPC 233 | N/A | Outlined factors relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion to allow further evidence in trade mark proceedings. |
| E I Dupont de Nemours & Co v S T Dupont | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 WLR 2793 | N/A | Approved the factors enumerated by Laddie J in Hunt-Wesson as being relevant. |
| Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Case reviewed by the Judge in the High Court GD. |
| WUNDERKIND Trade Mark | N/A | Yes | [2002] RPC 45 | N/A | Case reviewed by the Judge in the High Court GD. |
| Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd v Martek Biosciences Corporation | Intellectual Property Office of Singapore | Yes | [2009] SGIPOS 12 | Singapore | The Tribunal's judgment revoking the patent, which is the subject of the appeal. |
| Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 927 | Singapore | The High Court decision dismissing the Interlocutory Application, which is the subject of the appeal. |
| Mediacorp News Pte Ltd v Astro All Asia Networks plc | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 496 | Singapore | Endorsed by the Judge that a ‘rehearing’ under O 87 r 4 [of the] ROC [was] similar to that under O 57 r 13 [of the] ROC (ie, an appeal from [the] High Court to the Court of Appeal) |
| Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 577 | Singapore | Endorsed by the Judge that a ‘rehearing’ under O 87 r 4 [of the] ROC [was] similar to that under O 57 r 13 [of the] ROC (ie, an appeal from [the] High Court to the Court of Appeal) |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 55 rule 6(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 87A rule 13(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 87 rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 57 rule 13(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 55 rr 2(1) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 57 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Patent
- Arachidonic acid
- ARA
- Prior art
- Inventiveness
- Further evidence
- Due diligence
- Tribunal
- Rehearing
- Ladd v Marshall
- Patent revocation
15.2 Keywords
- Patent
- Appeal
- Evidence
- Revocation
- ARA
- Arachidonic Acid
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Patents | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Patent Law
- Evidence
- Civil Procedure