Gatekeeper, Inc v Wang Wensheng: Interim Mandatory Injunction for Intellectual Property Transfer

Gatekeeper, Inc, a Delaware corporation, sued Wang Wensheng, the sole proprietor of Hawkeye Technologies, in the High Court of Singapore, for breach of contract. Gatekeeper sought an interim mandatory injunction to compel Wang to deliver intellectual property related to Gatekeeper's technology, as per their agreement. Choo Han Teck J granted the injunction, finding a serious question to be tried, damages an inadequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoring Gatekeeper. The court ordered Wang to deliver specific intellectual property, including source code and licensing programs, related to the undercarriage scanning technology.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interim mandatory injunction granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Gatekeeper sues Wang for breach of contract, seeking specific performance of an agreement to transfer intellectual property. The court grants Gatekeeper's application for an interim mandatory injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gatekeeper, IncPlaintiffCorporationInterim mandatory injunction grantedWon
Wang Wensheng (trading as Hawkeye Technologies)DefendantIndividualInterim mandatory injunction granted against defendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
William Ong Boon HweeAllen & Gledhill LLP
Magdelene Sim JialingAllen & Gledhill LLP
Christopher Goh Seng LeongGoh Phai Cheng LLC
Constance Leong Choy LengGoh Phai Cheng LLC

4. Facts

  1. Gatekeeper is a Delaware corporation that designs computer vision technology.
  2. Wang is the sole proprietor of Hawkeye Technologies and CTO of Gatekeeper.
  3. Wang was asked to write software for Gatekeeper's under vehicle scanner.
  4. Gatekeeper and Hawkeye entered into an agreement in April 2005.
  5. The agreement required Hawkeye to transfer ownership of works of authorship to Gatekeeper.
  6. Gatekeeper claims Wang failed to hand over intellectual property.
  7. Gatekeeper sought an interim mandatory injunction to compel Wang to deliver the intellectual property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Gatekeeper, Inc v Wang Wensheng (trading as Hawkeye Technologies), Suit No 484 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 239

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wang commenced work for Gatekeeper.
Wang developed a working software.
Gatekeeper and Hawkeye entered into an Agreement.
Gatekeeper demanded Wang hand over intellectual property.
Suit No 484 of 2011 filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found a serious question to be tried regarding the breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to transfer intellectual property
      • Non-payment of royalties
  2. Interim Mandatory Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted the interim mandatory injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Adequacy of damages
      • Balance of convenience
    • Related Cases:
      • [1975] AC 396

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Specific Performance
  3. Interim Mandatory Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Specific Performance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon LtdHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 396United KingdomCited for the test to determine whether to grant an interim injunction.
Da Vinci Collection Pte Ltd v Richemont International SACourt of AppealYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 560SingaporeCited as a case where Singapore courts followed American Cyanamid.
NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 565SingaporeCited for the higher threshold to be met for an interim mandatory injunction.
Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 142SingaporeCited for the holding limited to interlocutory injunctions in defamation actions.
Chuan Hong Petrol Station Pte Ltd v Shell Singapore (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that courts generally require more before granting interim mandatory injunctions.
J. Lyons & Sons v WilkinsEngland and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)Yes[1896] 1 Ch 811United KingdomCited for the principle that the destruction of a business is a factor that may make damages inadequate as a remedy.
Reed Exhibitions Pte Ltd v Khoo Yak Chuan Thomas and anotherHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 383SingaporeCited for the principle that the loss of goodwill is hard to compensate and difficult to quantify.
Unitech Energy Corp. v International Datashare Corp.Court of Queen's Bench of AlbertaYes[2003] ABQB 203CanadaCited as a case in which specific performance of contractual obligations to supply software has been awarded.

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

  • Gatekeeper Technology
  • Under vehicle scanner
  • Intellectual property
  • Source code
  • Runtime license issuance programme
  • Agreement
  • Interim mandatory injunction
  • Works of authorship
  • Scanning of the under carriage of motor vehicles

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • intellectual property
  • injunction
  • software
  • technology
  • Gatekeeper
  • Hawkeye
  • Wang Wensheng

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Intellectual Property Law90
Injunctions80
Breach of Contract75
Specific performance60
Damages60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Intellectual Property
  • Technology Law
  • Software