Sun Electric v Sunseap: Pleadings, Particulars, & Patent Infringement
In a patent infringement suit before the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, Sun Electric Pte Ltd, the Plaintiff/Respondent, sought to establish that Sunseap Group Pte Ltd, Sunseap Energy Pte Ltd, and Sunseap Leasing Pte Ltd, the Defendants/Applicants, infringed its patent. The Defendants applied for further and better particulars regarding the Plaintiff's claims. The court granted some requests, denied others, and dismissed the alternative prayer for striking out parts of the pleadings. The case concerned the level of detail required in pleadings, particularly regarding patent claim construction and allegations of joint tortfeasorship.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for further and better particulars granted in part and dismissed in part; alternative prayer for striking out dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for further particulars in a patent infringement suit. The court addressed requests requiring patent claim construction and allegations of joint tortfeasorship.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun Electric Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Application for further and better particulars granted in part and dismissed in part | Partial | |
| Sunseap Group Pte Ltd | Defendants, Applicants | Corporation | Application for further and better particulars granted in part and dismissed in part | Partial | |
| Sunseap Energy Pte Ltd | Defendants, Applicants | Corporation | Application for further and better particulars granted in part and dismissed in part | Partial | |
| Sunseap Leasing Pte Ltd | Defendants, Applicants | Corporation | Application for further and better particulars granted in part and dismissed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Sun Electric Pte Ltd is the registered proprietor of Singapore Patent Application No 10201406883U.
- Sunseap Group Pte Ltd is the parent company of Sunseap Energy Pte Ltd and Sunseap Leasing Pte Ltd.
- Sunseap Energy Pte Ltd operates as an electricity retailer in the National Electricity Market of Singapore.
- Sunseap Leasing Pte Ltd designs, develops, manages, and constructs rooftop solar photovoltaic systems to generate electricity.
- The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have jointly or severally infringed certain system claims in the Patent.
- The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have infringed certain process claims in the Patent.
- The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants have committed acts pursuant to a common design to infringe the Patent.
5. Formal Citations
- Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 190 of 2018 (Summons No 4940 of 2018), [2019] SGHCR 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 190 of 2018 filed | |
| Summons No 4940 of 2018 filed | |
| Plaintiff’s Further and Better Particulars filed | |
| Hearing held | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court addressed requests for particulars relating to allegations of patent infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Infringement of system claims
- Infringement of process claims
- Joint tortfeasorship by common design
- Pleadings
- Outcome: The court ruled on the sufficiency of particulars provided in the pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of particulars
- Claim construction
- Requests for evidence
- Further and Better Particulars
- Outcome: The court ruled on the application for further and better particulars.
- Category: Procedural
- Joint Tortfeasorship by Common Design
- Outcome: The court provided guidance on the level of particularization required for pleading a claim of common design.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Further and Better Particulars
- Striking Out Parts of Pleadings
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Patent Litigation
11. Industries
- Energy
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 7 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff does not generally have to construe the terms and claims of his patent at an early stage of infringement proceedings. |
| Cranway Ltd (an Isle of Man Company) v Playtech Ltd (a BVI Company) and anor | N/A | Yes | [2007] RPC 527 | Isle of Man | Cited for the principle that the function of particulars of infringements is merely to point out to the Defendant what specific act on his part is complained of so as to prevent surprise at the trial. |
| Haw Par Brothers International Limited and anor v Jack Chiarapurk also known as Jack Chia and ors | High Court | Yes | [1991] SGHC 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff ought to identify with precision the specific Defendants against whom particular allegations are made. |
| Intel Corp v General Instrument Corp | Patents Court | Yes | [1989] FSR 640 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that further particulars should not be ordered pending discovery, because the facts on which entity committed the particular acts of infringement were “peculiarly in the possession of the defendants”. |
| Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v Rothmans Inc | Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court | Yes | [2015] NJ No 434 | Canada | Cited for the principle that the Plaintiff should not be allowed to cite ambiguous and open-ended terms. |
| Anheuser-Bush Incorporated v Budejovicky Budvar, Narodni Podnik | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2000] HKCU 1109 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff ought to establish “not just a common design but the commission of a tortious act by one of the parties in furtherance of that common design”. |
| SNE Engineering Co Ltd v Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd & anor | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 6 HKC 583 | Hong Kong | Cited for the proposition that “[i]t is clear that common design must be pleaded”. |
| Ammon v Consolidated Minerals Ltd and anor | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2005] WASC 156 | Australia | Cited for the principle that it is unsatisfactory for the pleadings on common design to merely repeat allegations of the primary infringement. |
| Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and ors and or suits (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 389 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that joint tortfeasorship can be divided into two broad categories, ie, (a) first, where one party conspires with the primary party or induces the commission of the tort; and (b) second, where two or more persons join in a common design pursuant to which the tort is committed. |
| Morton-Norwich Products Inc and Others v Intercen Limited | N/A | Yes | [1978] RPC 501 | N/A | Cited for explaining a claim for common design as one in which “two persons agree on common action in the course of and to further which one of them commits a tort”. |
| Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited | N/A | Yes | [1989] RPC 583 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that in order for common design to be found, it is not necessary for the persons involved to have mapped out a plan; tacit agreement will also suffice. |
| Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and others | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2015] 2 WLR 694 | United Kingdom | Cited for the elements of liability for joint tortfeasorship by common design. |
| Vertical Leisure Limited v Poleplus Limited, Peter Bowley | N/A | Yes | [2015] EWHC 841 | N/A | Cited for the observations of Hacon J in the postscript to the case. |
| Bradley Lomas Electrolok Ltd and another v Colt Ventilation East Asia Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156 | Singapore | Cited as an example of particulars of infringement in relation to common design. |
| The Mead Corporation and Another v Riverwood Multiple Packaging Division of Riverwood International Corporation | UK High Court | Yes | [1997] FSR 484 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of a common design claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 12(3) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 87A Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed 2014) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Patent
- Infringement
- Particulars
- Pleadings
- Common Design
- Consolidation Unit
- Associate
- Electricity Product
- Affiliates
- Additional Customers
- PV Generation Facilities
- TIGRs
- Power Purchase Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- patent infringement
- pleadings
- particulars
- common design
- intellectual property
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Patents | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Contracts | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 20 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Corporate Litigation | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Procedure
- Patent Law