Towa Corp v ASM Technology: Patent Infringement & Damages Assessment

In Towa Corp v ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the assessment of damages owed by ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd to Towa Corporation for patent infringement related to moulding machines. Towa claimed lost profits from machine sales, after-sales services, and price reductions. The court determined the methodology for calculating damages, considering factors like market share, machine life expectancy, and incremental costs. The court found that Towa was entitled to damages for lost sales of YPS machines and additional parts, but not for price reductions. The court ordered a re-computation of damages based on its findings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Damages awarded to Plaintiff, Towa Corporation, for patent infringement, subject to re-computation based on court's findings.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Patent infringement suit. Court assesses damages owed to Towa for ASM's infringement, focusing on lost profits from machine sales and after-sales services.

1.7 Decision Date

13 April 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
TOWA Corporation	Plaintiff	Corporation	Damages awarded, subject to re-computation	Partial	Low Chai Chong of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Foo Maw Jiun of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Lee Ai Ming of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Sherman Poon of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Angie Ng of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Liable for damages	Lost	Lim Ying Sin Daniel of Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC Lakshmanan Anbarazan of Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC
ASM Pacific Technology Limited	Defendant	Corporation	Liable for damages	Lost	Lim Ying Sin Daniel of Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC Lakshmanan Anbarazan of Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Low Chai Chong	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Foo Maw Jiun	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lee Ai Ming	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Sherman Poon	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Angie Ng	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lim Ying Sin Daniel	Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC
Lakshmanan Anbarazan	Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC

4. Facts

Towa is a Japanese company providing semiconductor packaging solutions and owns Singapore Patent No 49740.
ASMS is a Singaporean company manufacturing and selling semiconductor equipment, including the IDEALmold machine.
Towa sued ASMS for patent infringement, alleging that the IDEALmold machine infringed Towa's patent.
The High Court found ASMS liable for patent infringement.
The Court of Appeal defined the claim period for damages as April 20, 2007, to July 5, 2014.
Towa elected to receive damages for the infringement.
Towa claimed lost profits from lost sales of YPS machines, after-sales services, and price reductions.

5. Formal Citations

Towa Corp v ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 359 of 2013, [2023] SGHC 99

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-04-19	Lawsuit filed
2016-12-22	Decision on liability given
2023-04-14	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants' acts constituted patent infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of patent claims
  - Acts of infringement (making, disposing, offering to dispose, keeping, offering for use)
  - Causation between infringement and damages
Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court determined the methodology for calculating damages, considering various factors and expert opinions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Lost profits
  - Reasonable royalty
  - Incremental costs
  - Market share
  - Life expectancy of machines
  - Discount rate
  - Pre-judgment interest
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that Towa had not established sufficient causation between the price reduction and ASMS's infringement of the Patent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Direct and foreseeable consequences of infringement
  - Attributable profits
  - Market factors affecting price reduction

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Interest

9. Cause of Actions

Patent Infringement

10. Practice Areas

Intellectual Property Litigation
Patent Infringement
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Semiconductor
Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Towa Corp v ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 771	Singapore	Established the first defendant's liability for patent infringement.
ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd v Towa Corp	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 211	Singapore	Dismissed the appeal against the decision on liability and defined the claim period for damages.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 901	Singapore	Cited for the principle that damages are intended to be compensatory in nature.
Livingstone v Rawyards Co	House of Lords	Yes	(1880) 5 App Cas 25	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that damages should put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the wrong not been committed.
Kiri Industries Ltd and another v DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 49	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court must adopt a flexible approach with respect to the proof of damage.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the plaintiff is not required to prove with complete certainty the amount of damage it has suffered.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 214	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the plaintiff is not required to prove with complete certainty the amount of damage it has suffered.
General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975] 1 WLR 819	England and Wales	Cited for the elemental principles applied to cases of patent infringement.
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd and anr	High Court	Yes	[1995] RPC 383	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that patentees are allowed to claim damages for the sales of an infringing product made after the expiration of a patent.
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] RPC 443	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to claim for damages suffered by its wholly owned subsidiary if that subsidiary shares consolidated accounts with the parent.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1422	Singapore	Cited regarding the need for pleadings to be specific enough to avoid prejudice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Patents Act (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed) s 66(1)(a)	Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 12(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Patent
Infringement
Damages
IDEALmold machine
YPS machine
Claim Period
Modularity
Market Share
Aftersales Services
Additional Parts

15.2 Keywords

patent infringement
damages assessment
semiconductor packaging
moulding machines
lost profits
market share
after-sales services

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Damages	95
Damages Assessment	90
Intellectual Property Law	85
Commercial Disputes	70
Contract Law	60
Evidence	50

16. Subjects

Intellectual Property Law
Patent Infringement
Damages Assessment