Foo Maw Jiun

Foo Maw Jiun is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 13 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and patents. Their track record shows a 46.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated expertise across 32 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and trademarks.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	11 cases	16% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 11 cases which represents 16% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	7 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	6 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice44% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Patents	5 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized89% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice22% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Invalidity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bad faith	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Groundless threat	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Ownership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Novelty	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Validity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inventive step	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trade names	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Foo Maw Jiun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Foo Maw Jiun has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 7 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	7 cases	54% of cases	Global Tobacco v Jamal: Trade Mark Invalidity for Cigarette Products(Sep 2015) Guy Neale v Ku De Ta: Trade Mark Infringement, Exclusive Licence, and Beneficial Ownership Dispute(May 2015) Al Mahamid v Global Tobacco: Trade Mark Invalidation for Cigarette Brand 'Manchester'(Feb 2015)
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	6 cases	46% of cases	TOWA Corp v ASMPT: Patent Infringement Damages Assessment Appeal(Nov 2024) TOWA Corp v ASMPT: Patent Infringement Damages Assessment Clarification(Jun 2024) Towa Corp v ASM Technology: Patent Infringement & Damages Assessment(Apr 2023)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Foo Maw Jiun's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	52.4 parties avg	2.4	38%
Partial	23.0 parties avg	3.0	15%
Won	62.3 parties avg	2.3	46%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	42.3 parties avg	2.3
2016	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Foo Maw Jiun's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	5(38%)	38%
Partial	2(15%)	15%
Won	6(46%)	46%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
JPY	386,942,396.00	386,942,396.001 cases	1
SGD	85,000.00	10,625.008 cases	8

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 13 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	TOWA Corp v ASMPT: Patent Infringement Damages Assessment Appeal 21 Nov 2024 TOWA Corporation (Appellant, Claimant, Respondent)Lost	21 Nov 2024	TOWA Corporation (Appellant, Claimant, Respondent): Appeal dismissed in its entiretyTOWA's appeal against the findings in the AD Decisions that resulted in it receiving less damages for the breach of its Patent was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	TOWA Corp v ASMPT: Patent Infringement Damages Assessment Clarification 26 Jun 2024 TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff)Won	26 Jun 2024	TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffDamages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of ¥386,942,396, excluding interests and costs. Assumed JPY as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Towa Corp v ASM Technology: Patent Infringement & Damages Assessment 13 Apr 2023 TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff)Partial	13 Apr 2023	TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff): Damages awarded, subject to re-computationDamages awarded to Towa, subject to re-computation based on the court's findings. The currency is JPY, as it is the functional currency of Towa Corporation.
4	Tomy Inc v Dentsply Sirona Inc: Trade Mark Invalidity & Bad Faith Dispute 19 May 2020 Tomy Incorporated (Appellant)Lost	19 May 2020	Tomy Incorporated (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Tomy Inc. to bear the costs of the respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	ASM Technology v Towa Corporation: Patent Infringement & Modularity 04 Jan 2018 TOWA Corporation (Respondent)Won	04 Jan 2018	TOWA Corporation (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of $85,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Towa Corp v ASM Technology: Patent Infringement, Moulding Machine, Inventive Step 21 Dec 2016 TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff)Won	21 Dec 2016	TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; an inquiry as to damages or, alternatively, at the plaintiff’s option, an account of profits and an order for payment of all sums found due upon making such inquiry or account; and interest at 5.33% per annum (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Global Tobacco v Jamal: Trade Mark Invalidity for Cigarette Products 28 Sep 2015 Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid (Respondent)Won	28 Sep 2015	Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favour of the respondent; costs of the appeal and proceedings below to be taxed if not agreed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Guy Neale v Ku De Ta: Trade Mark Infringement, Exclusive Licence, and Beneficial Ownership Dispute 25 May 2015 Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	25 May 2015	Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; the Respondent's rights as a licensee cannot be asserted against the Appellants. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Al Mahamid v Global Tobacco: Trade Mark Invalidation for Cigarette Brand 'Manchester' 10 Feb 2015 Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid (Plaintiff)Won	10 Feb 2015	Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid (Plaintiff): Trade Mark Invalidation GrantedTrade Mark No. T1208253B for “Manchester and M device” registered in Class 34 in the name of the Defendant is declared invalid under s 23(3)(a)(i) read with s 8(2)(b) of the Act. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Towa Corp v ASM Technology: Specific Discovery in Patent Infringement Suit 01 Feb 2015 Towa Corp (Plaintiff)Partial	01 Feb 2015	Towa Corp (Plaintiff): Application granted in partPlaintiff's application for specific discovery was granted in part, specifically for Category 1 (limited to certain machines) and Category 3. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	Towa Corp v ASM Tech: Patent Infringement & Inspection of IDEALmold Machine 07 Aug 2014 TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff)Lost	07 Aug 2014	TOWA Corporation (Plaintiff): Application DismissedPlaintiff's application for inspection of the IDEALmold machine was dismissed.
12	Guy Neale v Ku de Ta SG Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute 17 Nov 2013 Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	17 Nov 2013	Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the defendant; the plaintiffs' action was dismissed.
13	Neale v Ku De Ta: Trade Mark Infringement & Protection of Well-Known Marks 25 May 2011 Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	25 May 2011	Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd (Defendant): Application grantedDefendant's application to strike out portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim was dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).