Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies: Patent Infringement & Groundless Threat of Proceedings
Lee Tat Cheng, the Appellant, appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd, the Respondent, regarding a patent for an in-vehicle camera. The High Court found the patent valid but not infringed and granted the Respondent injunctive relief for groundless threats of infringement proceedings. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of non-infringement, reversed the injunction, and adjusted the costs order. The primary legal issues revolved around patent infringement and groundless threats of infringement proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on patent infringement for in-vehicle camera. Court found no infringement and reversed injunction for groundless threats of proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Tat Cheng | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Lim Ying Sin Daniel |
| Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim allowed in part | Partial | Bryan Manaf Ghows, Wan Rui Jie Erwin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Ying Sin Daniel | Joyce A Tan & Partners LLC |
| Bryan Manaf Ghows | Taylor Vinters Via LLC |
| Wan Rui Jie Erwin | Taylor Vinters Via LLC |
4. Facts
- Lee Tat Cheng owns a patent for an in-vehicle camera system.
- Maka GPS Technologies sold three models of in-vehicle cameras.
- Lee Tat Cheng alleged Maka GPS Technologies infringed his patent.
- Maka GPS Technologies denied infringement and claimed the patent was invalid.
- Maka GPS Technologies counterclaimed for groundless threats of infringement proceedings.
- The High Court found the patent valid but not infringed.
- The High Court granted Maka GPS Technologies an injunction against Lee Tat Cheng for groundless threats.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 73 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Patent filed | |
| Patent published | |
| Patent granted | |
| Suit filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: Court found no infringement of Claim 1 of the patent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Usurpation of essential elements of patent claim
- Construction of patent claims
- Interpretation of 'ignition monitor'
- Interpretation of 'signal'
- Interpretation of 'optical recorder'
- Groundless Threats of Infringement Proceedings
- Outcome: Injunction against future threats reversed; relief under s 77 held to be discretionary.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Justification of threats
- Discretionary nature of relief
- Proof of damages
- Patent Construction
- Outcome: Court reaffirmed the purposive approach to patent construction and declined to apply the doctrine of equivalents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Purposive construction
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Interpretation of claims
8. Remedies Sought
- Delivery up of infringing devices
- Account of profits or damages
- Injunction against groundless threats
- Declaration that threats are unjustifiable
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
- Groundless Threats of Infringement Proceedings
10. Practice Areas
- Patent Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Automotive
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 48 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment under appeal, detailing the lower court's findings on patent validity, non-infringement, and groundless threats. |
| Catnic Components Limited and another v Hill & Smith Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] RPC 183 | United Kingdom | Cited for establishing the purposive approach to patent construction. |
| Improver Corporation and others v Remington Consumer Products Limited and others | UK Patents Court | Yes | [1990] FSR 181 | United Kingdom | Cited for the Improver questions used in assessing patent infringement. |
| Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] RPC 9 | United Kingdom | Cited for discussing the limitations of the Improver questions and emphasizing the importance of claim construction. |
| Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co v Linde Air Products Co | Supreme Court of the United States | Yes | (1950) 339 US 605 | United States | Cited to explain the doctrine of equivalents. |
| Royal Typewriter Co v Remington Rand, Inc | Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit | Yes | 168 F 2d 691 | United States | Cited to explain the doctrine of equivalents. |
| FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others v Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 874 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for the purposive approach to patent construction in Singapore. |
| 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 as precedent for the purposive approach to patent construction in Singapore. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and another | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for the purposive approach to patent construction in Singapore. |
| Bean Innovations Pte Ltd and another v Flexon (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 116 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for the purposive approach to patent construction in Singapore and rejection of doctrine of equivalents. |
| Mühlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for the purposive approach to patent construction in Singapore. |
| Actavis UK Limited and others v Eli Lilly and Company | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2017] UKSC 48 | United Kingdom | Cited for its reformulation of the UK approach to patent construction and infringement, but ultimately not applied in Singapore. |
| Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc) v NexPlanar Corp and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 310 | Singapore | Cited for its discussion of the Actavis decision and caution regarding its adoption in Singapore. |
| Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (trading as L S Electrical Trading) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that relief for groundless threats of infringement proceedings is discretionary. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 87A r 3(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) s 66(1) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) s 77 | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) s 113 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Patent
- Infringement
- Groundless threats
- In-vehicle camera
- Ignition monitor
- Signal
- Optical recorder
- Purposive construction
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Essential elements
15.2 Keywords
- patent infringement
- groundless threats
- in-vehicle camera
- intellectual property
- Singapore
- patent construction
16. Subjects
- Patent Law
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Patent Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- Civil Procedure