Siemens v Lion Global: Summary Judgment for Software License Agreement Dispute
Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd sued Lion Global Offshore Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for breach of a Licensed Software Designation Agreement (LSDA). Siemens sought summary judgment for S$267,500, the price of software licenses. Lion Global opposed, claiming several triable issues. Chan Seng Onn J dismissed Lion Global's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment to Siemens, finding the LSDA a valid and independent agreement and that no triable issues existed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court granted summary judgment to Siemens for breach of a software license agreement, finding no triable issues raised by Lion Global.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Navin Joseph Lobo, Ang Kai Wen |
| Lion Global Offshore Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Lim Hong Kan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Navin Joseph Lobo | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
| Ang Kai Wen | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
| Lim Hong Kan | Lim & Bangras |
4. Facts
- Siemens and Lion Global were in a copyright infringement dispute.
- The parties met on 27 June 2014 to settle the dispute.
- Lion Global signed a Settlement Agreement (SA) and a Licensed Software Designation Agreement (LSDA).
- The SA was conditional on Lion Global purchasing six software licenses under the LSDA and making full payment.
- Siemens delivered the software licenses electronically.
- Lion Global refused to pay the invoice of S$267,500.
- Siemens commenced an action for the debt owed under the LSDA.
5. Formal Citations
- Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd v Lion Global Offshore Pte Ltd, Suit No 785 of 2014 (Registrar's Appeal No 331 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 251
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Settlement Agreement and Licensed Software Designation Agreement signed. | |
| Proforma Invoice issued. | |
| Plaintiff transmitted Proforma Invoice to the defendant by email. | |
| Defendant informed the plaintiff that it was not willing to pay on the Invoice. | |
| Plaintiff delivered six software licenses to the defendant. | |
| Plaintiff issued a letter of demand. | |
| Plaintiff commenced action. | |
| Ng Khim Kiong’s affidavit dated. | |
| Saurabh Bose’s affidavit dated. | |
| Written Submissions of the Plaintiff dated. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the LSDA by refusing to pay for the software licenses.
- Category: Substantive
- Enforceability of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the LSDA was a valid and enforceable contract, despite the defendant's claims of uncertainty and duress.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- uncertainty of terms
- duress
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court granted summary judgment, finding no triable issues raised by the defendant.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Software Licensing
- Summary Judgment
11. Industries
- Software
- Offshore Rig Vessel Design
- Shipbuilding
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 225 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principles governing an application for summary judgment. |
| Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1342 | Singapore | Cited for clarification that it is the tactical burden and not the evidential or legal burden that shifts to the defendant in summary judgement. |
| Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court would not grant leave to defend if all the defendant provides is a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence. |
| Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 MLJ 400 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a judge has a duty to reject assertions or denials that are equivocal, lacking in precision, inconsistent with undisputed documents, or inherently improbable. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners) | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the two elements in the wrong of duress: compulsion of the will and illegitimacy of the pressure. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a threat to enforce one’s legal right does not amount to duress, at least where the threat is made bona fide, and is not manifestly frivolous or vexatious. |
| Real Estate Consortium Pte Ltd v East Coast Properties Pte Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 758 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a threat to take legal action if payment is not made is insufficient to amount to illegitimate pressure. |
| Shunmugam Jayakumar v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 658 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the principle that a threat to enforce one’s legal rights by instituting civil proceedings cannot be an unlawful or wrongful threat. |
| Miles v New Zealand Alford Estate Company | N/A | Yes | (1886) 32 Ch D 266 | N/A | Cited in relation to the principle that a threat to enforce one’s legal rights by instituting civil proceedings cannot be an unlawful or wrongful threat. |
| Jayawickreme v Amarasuriya (since deceased) | N/A | Yes | [1918] AC 869 | N/A | Cited in relation to the principle that a threat to enforce one’s legal rights by instituting civil proceedings cannot be an unlawful or wrongful threat. |
| T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that uncertainty as to the time of payment may render an agreement unenforceable when it is determined to be vital to the agreement, but distinguished on the facts. |
| Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sukamto Sia and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 277 | Singapore | Cited for approval of T2 Networks case. |
| G Scammell and Nephew, Limited v H C and J G Ouston | N/A | Yes | [1941] AC 251 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give it a practical meaning. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Settlement Agreement
- Licensed Software Designation Agreement
- Copyright Dispute
- Summary Judgment
- Triable Issue
- Software Licenses
- Proforma Invoice
- Consensus ad idem
15.2 Keywords
- software license
- settlement agreement
- summary judgment
- breach of contract
- copyright infringement
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Copyright Law
- Civil Procedure