Mok Ho Fai

Mok Ho Fai is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2019 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in intellectual property law and civil practice. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated expertise across 27 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and intellectual property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patents	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Vicarious liability	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Geographical indications	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Issue Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Transnational issue estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Therapeutic Products Regulation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mok Ho Fai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mok Ho Fai has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bird & Bird ATMD LLP	5 cases	100% of cases	Consorzio di Tutela v Australian Grape: Geographical Indications & Consumer Mislead(Nov 2023) Siemens v Inzign: Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Liability, and Damages for Unauthorized Software Use(Feb 2023) Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA: Transnational Issue Estoppel & Foreign Judgments(Feb 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Mok Ho Fai's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Neutral	16.0 parties avg	6.0	20%
Partial	24.0 parties avg	4.0	40%
Won	32.0 parties avg	2.0	60%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2019	24.7 parties avg	4.7
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Mok Ho Fai's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Neutral	1(17%)	17%
Partial	2(33%)	33%
Won	3(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	200,574.00	50,143.504 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2019	3 12	Neutral: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 2 cases (66.7%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Consorzio di Tutela v Australian Grape: Geographical Indications & Consumer Mislead 07 Nov 2023 Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco (Appellant)Won	07 Nov 2023	Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed, with costs of $120,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by AGWI to the Consorzio. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Siemens v Inzign: Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Liability, and Damages for Unauthorized Software Use 28 Feb 2023 Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) (Plaintiff)Won	28 Feb 2023	Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $30,574 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA: Transnational Issue Estoppel & Foreign Judgments 25 Feb 2021 Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) (Respondent)Won	25 Feb 2021	Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs of $50,000 awarded to the Respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme: Issue Estoppel & Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Dispute 29 Sep 2019 Merck Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Neutral	29 Sep 2019	Merck Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): NeutralNo specific outcome mentioned for this party.
5	Millennium Pharmaceuticals v Drug Houses of Australia: Patent Infringement & Injunctions 29 Apr 2019 Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd (Respondent, Defendant)Partial	29 Apr 2019	Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd (Respondent, Defendant): Appeal dismissed in partCivil Appeal No 84 of 2018 dismissed. The costs order of $5,000 awarded to the Respondent for the striking out application is reversed so that the same amount is now payable to the Appellant. The costs order of $7,000 awarded to the Respondent for the application for an injunction is varied by reducing the amount payable to the Respondent to $3,500 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).