Martek v Cargill: Patent Revocation, Microbial Oil Mixtures, and Infant Formula Supplementation
In Martek Biosciences Corporation v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal regarding the revocation of Singapore Patent P-No. 49307, concerning microbial oil mixtures for infant formula supplementation. Martek Biosciences Corporation, the applicant, appealed against the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Patents and the Principal Assistant Registrar of Patents, while Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd, the respondent, cross-appealed certain aspects of the decision. The High Court allowed Martek's appeal against the revocation, finding the patent valid, but dismissed appeals related to amendment proceedings, except for Claim 42 and Claim 45 in the Proposed 2006 Amendments. The court found that the patent fulfilled the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applicant's appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the Revocation Proceedings is allowed. Both parties' appeal and cross-appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the Amendment Proceedings are dismissed, except regarding Claim 42 and consequently Claim 45 in the Proposed 2006 Amendments.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court rules on patent revocation and amendment concerning microbial oil mixtures for infant formula supplementation, addressing novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martek Biosciences Corporation | Applicant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Cross-Appeal Dismissed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Martek Biosciences Corporation is the proprietor of Singapore Patent P-No. 49307, entitled “Microbial Oil Mixtures and Use Thereof”.
- Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd filed an application to revoke the Patent on grounds of non-patentability, insufficiency, and disclosure of additional matter.
- The Patent relates to compositions including blends of microbial oils, methods of using such compositions, particularly as supplements for infant formula.
- The Applicant filed four sets of amendments to the patent: in 1997, 1999, 2006 and 2008.
- The Tribunal held that the 1999 Amendments are allowable under s 84, except for claim 30.
- The Tribunal held that the Proposed 2006 and 2008 Amendments contain some claims which do not meet the requirements of s 84.
- The Tribunal held that all the claims in the Proposed 2006 and 2008 Amendments as well as the 1999 Amendments meet the threshold of sufficiency.
5. Formal Citations
- Martek Biosciences Corporation v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No. 156 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 71
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant applied for a grant of the Patent | |
| First set of amendments filed (1997 Amendments) | |
| Second set of amendments filed (1999 Amendments) | |
| Patent granted by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore | |
| Respondent filed an application to revoke the Patent | |
| Applicant filed a counter statement | |
| Proposed 2006 Amendments advertised in The Patents Journal | |
| Applicant filed another set of amendments (Proposed 2008 Amendments) | |
| Respondents objected to Proposed 2008 Amendments | |
| Case Management Conference held | |
| Proposed 2008 Amendments advertised in The Patents Journal | |
| Re-examination Report made available to the parties | |
| Case Management Conference held | |
| Revocation Proceedings and the Amendment Proceedings were consolidated and heard together | |
| Revocation Proceedings and the Amendment Proceedings were consolidated and heard together | |
| Revocation Proceedings and the Amendment Proceedings were consolidated and heard together | |
| Decision of the Deputy Registrar of Patents and the Principal Assistant Registrar of Patents | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Patent Revocation
- Outcome: The court dismissed the revocation proceedings, finding that the patent fulfilled the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Novelty
- Inventive Step
- Sufficiency of Disclosure
- Patent Amendment
- Outcome: The court dismissed both parties' appeals and cross-appeals against the Tribunal's decision in the Amendment Proceedings, except with regard to Claim 42 and consequently Claim 45 in the Proposed 2006 Amendments.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Disclosure of Additional Matter
- Extension of Protection Granted by Patent
8. Remedies Sought
- Revocation of Patent
- Dismissal of Revocation Application
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Revocation
10. Practice Areas
- Patent Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Biotechnology
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding novelty assessment, specifically that prior art must disclose clear and unambiguous directions leading to infringement and that prior art documents must be construed separately. |
| First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 335 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that claims are the principal determinants of a patent and that a patent should be construed purposively rather than by a strict literal approach. |
| Bonzel v Intervention Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] RPC 553 | N/A | Cited for the principle that subject matter will be considered 'additional matter' if it is not clearly and unambiguously disclosed, either implicitly or explicitly, in the application as originally filed. |
| Siegfried Demel v Jefferson | N/A | Yes | [1999] RPC 155 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the scope of an individual claim may be extended so long as it does not extend the overall monopoly of the patent. |
| Rediffusion Simulation v Link-Miles | N/A | Yes | [1993] FSR 369 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a specification should be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee attempting to give it practical meaning and endeavoring to ascertain the intention of the draftsmen. |
| Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] FSR 37 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a patentee who contributes something new by showing that, contrary to the mistaken prejudice, the idea will work or is practical has shown something new. |
| Electric & Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1939] 56 RPC 23 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the words and terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary English meaning unless a word or expression has a specialised meaning in the relevant art. |
| Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1973) 130 CLR 461 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the specification may indicate an ambiguous meaning thereby justifying resort to the body of the specification to define the words used in the claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Patents Rules (Cap 221, R1, 1996 Rev Ed) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 1995 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Microbial Oil
- Infant Formula
- Arachidonic Acid (ARA)
- Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA)
- Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFAs)
- Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (lcPUFAs)
- Patent Amendment
- Patent Revocation
- Novelty
- Inventive Step
- Sufficiency
15.2 Keywords
- Patent
- Revocation
- Amendment
- Microbial Oil
- Infant Formula
- ARA
- DHA
- Singapore
- Intellectual Property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Patents | 90 |
| Patent Law | 80 |
| Patent Revocation | 75 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 70 |
| Patent Amendments | 65 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Patent Law
- Intellectual Property
- Food Science
- Nutrition