PH Hydraulics v Intrepid Offshore: Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence, and Non-Competition Clause Dispute
In a case before the High Court of Singapore on 2012-06-27, PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd sued Intrepid Offshore Construction Pte Ltd and Rinov Herawan for copyright infringement and breach of confidence regarding five General Arrangement drawings of winches, and breach of a non-competition clause. The court found the defendants liable for copyright infringement and breach of confidence, granting an injunction against continued use of the drawings and awarding statutory damages. The claim for breach of the non-competition clause was rejected due to acquiescence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
PH Hydraulics sued Intrepid Offshore and a former employee for copyright infringement, breach of confidence, and breach of a non-competition clause. The court found copyright infringement and breach of confidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Intrepid Offshore Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Liable for copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality | Lost | |
| Rinov Herawan | Defendant | Individual | Liable for copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Tee Jim | Lee & Lee |
| Freddy Lim | Lee & Lee |
| Maurice Cheong | Lee & Lee |
| Han Wah Teng | Nanyang Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and breach of confidence regarding five GA drawings of winches.
- Second defendant was a former employee of the plaintiff and later worked for the first defendant.
- Second defendant signed an employment agreement with confidentiality and non-competition clauses.
- First defendant published a catalogue with drawings similar to the plaintiff's GA drawings.
- Defendants admitted to copying the drawings from others.
- Plaintiff claimed the GA drawings were confidential and had security measures to protect them.
- Plaintiff acquiesced to the second defendant's breach of the non-competition clause by not taking action.
5. Formal Citations
- PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Intrepid Offshore Construction Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 450 of 2011, [2012] SGHC 133
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Second defendant commenced work with the plaintiff and signed an employment agreement. | |
| Second defendant resigned from the plaintiff. | |
| Second defendant joined EMS Engineering & Marine Services (Pte) Ltd. | |
| Second defendant started work as a Project Engineer at the first defendant. | |
| Plaintiff learnt that the first defendant had published a promotional catalogue. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had infringed the copyright in the plaintiff’s five GA drawings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Substantial reproduction
- Causal connection
- Access to copyrighted work
- Substantial similarity
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had breached their obligation of confidentiality concerning the five GA drawings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Confidential information
- Trade secrets
- Equitable obligation of confidence
- Unauthorised use of information
- Springboard doctrine
- Breach of Non-Competition Clause
- Outcome: The court found that the second defendant was not liable for breaching the non-competition clause due to acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Restraint of trade
- Legitimate proprietary interest
- Reasonableness of scope of protection
- Acquiescence
- Statutory Damages
- Outcome: The court awarded statutory damages of S$5,000 per drawing, totaling S$25,000.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunctions
- Inquiry into damages
- Account of profits
- Delivery up or destruction of infringing drawings
- Damages for breach of employment agreement
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
- Breach of Confidence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Marine
- Engineering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auvi Pte Ltd v Seah Siew Tee and another | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that simplicity of works does not detract from copyright protection. |
| Flamelite (S) Pte Ltd v Lam Heng Chung | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 610 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prima facie inference of causal connection may be drawn where the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and where there was close similarity between the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s work. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the significance of fingerprints pointing to substantial similarity of works. |
| Man Financial v Wong Bark Chuan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663 | Singapore | Cited for factors to determine if information amounts to trade secrets. |
| Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler | Chancery Division | Yes | [1987] Ch 117 | England and Wales | Cited for factors to determine if information amounts to trade secrets. |
| Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1960] RPC 41 | England and Wales | Cited for the elements required to establish a breach of confidentiality. |
| X Pte Ltd v CDE | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 575 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish a breach of confidentiality. |
| Tang Siew Choy v Certact Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 835 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the springboard doctrine. |
| Terrapin Ltd v Builders’ Supply Company (Hayes) Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [1967] RPC 375 | England and Wales | Cited for the articulation of the springboard doctrine. |
| Stratech Systems Limited v Guthrie Properties (S) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 77 | Singapore | Cited for the articulation of the springboard doctrine. |
| Murray v Yorkshire Fund Managers | Court of Appeal | Yes | Murray v Yorkshire Fund Managers (1997) 1 WLR 951 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the springboard doctrine would no longer be applicable where the information in issue has ceased to be confidential. |
| CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon Ching | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 386 | Singapore | Cited for the basic principles on restraint of trade. |
| Thorsten Nordenfelt v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1894] AC 535 | United Kingdom | Cited for the basic principles on restraint of trade. |
| Fitch v Dewes | House of Lords | Yes | Fitch v Dewes [[1921] 2 AC 158] | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a covenant that literally fetters forever may be reasonable, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. |
| Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 579 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there was already another clause protecting confidential information or trade secrets in the contract, the restraint of trade clause must cover a legitimate proprietary interest beyond the protection of the confidential information or trade secrets for it to be valid. |
| Heller Factoring (S) Ltd v Ng Tong Yang | High Court | Yes | Heller Factoring (S) Ltd v Ng Tong Yang [1993] 1 SLR(R) 495 | Singapore | Cited as an example where a 2-year restrictive covenant was found valid in a specialised industry. |
| Fellowes & Sons v Fisher | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1976] QB 122 | England and Wales | Cited as an example where the court saw it fit to uphold the validity of the clerk’s covenant against canvassing. |
| Routh v Jones | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1947] 1 All ER 758 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that while an employer is not entitled to stipulate for protection against competition, the fact that a side effect of a legitimate covenant could potentially prevent some competition did not mean that the covenant was thus bad. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the defence of acquiescence. |
| Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the defence of acquiescence. |
| LS Investment Pte Ltd v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 369 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the defence of acquiescence. |
| Keppel Tat Lee Bank Ltd v Teck Koon Investment Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the defence of acquiescence. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur John and others | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 840 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that indemnity costs may be awarded where there are special or exceptional circumstances to do so, such as when a party acted unreasonably in the proceedings. |
| Teo Siew Peng and another v Neo Hock Pheng and others | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 293 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that indemnity costs may be awarded where there are special or exceptional circumstances to do so, such as when a party acted unreasonably in the proceedings. |
| Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 193 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings may be initiated in the High Court only where there was a sufficient reason to do so, such as when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the damages recoverable would exceed the District Court’s jurisdiction. |
| New Line Productions, Inc and another v Aglow Video Pte Ltd and others and other suits | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 660 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court considered similar factors in applying s 119(4) CA when determining the quantum of additional damages under s 119(4) CA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- General Arrangement drawings
- GA drawings
- Winches
- Copyright infringement
- Breach of confidence
- Non-competition clause
- Confidential information
- Springboard doctrine
- Acquiescence
- Statutory damages
15.2 Keywords
- copyright
- infringement
- breach of confidence
- non-competition
- winches
- drawings
- employment agreement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Confidence | 90 |
| Copyrights | 90 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Employment Law | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Commercial Law | 50 |
| Marine Industry | 30 |
| Construction Defects | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Contract Law
- Employment Law