Oh Pin-Ping

Oh Pin-Ping is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 8 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in intellectual property law and patents. Their track record shows a 38.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated expertise across 34 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and commercial disputes.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	5 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	4 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	4 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice22% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Patents	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized89% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Groundless threat	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Dynamic Currency Conversion	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Extension of Validity	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Review	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Malicious Falsehood	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Offer to Settle	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Interest	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Infringement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Invalidity	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bad faith	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Injurious Falsehood	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Pharmaceuticals	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Software Patent	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Unfair Competition	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Pin-Ping has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Oh Pin-Ping has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bird & Bird ATMD LLP	6 cases	75% of cases	Triple D Trading v Fanco Fan Marketing: Trade Mark Invalidity & Groundless Threat(Sep 2022) Nippon Shinyaku Co v Registrar of Patents: Patent Specification Correction Dispute(Jul 2022) Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd: Copyright Infringement & Standing to Sue(Oct 2021)
ATMD Bird & Bird LLP	1 cases	13% of cases	Allergan, Inc v Ferlandz Nutra: Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Injurious Falsehood(Jan 2015)
M/s ATMD Bird & Bird LLP	1 cases	13% of cases	Main-Line v UOB & FCC: Patent Infringement, Dynamic Currency Conversion, Account of Profits(Dec 2011)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Oh Pin-Ping's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.6
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.5 parties avg	2.5	25%
Partial	32.8 parties avg	2.8	38%
Won	32.3 parties avg	2.3	38%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Oh Pin-Ping's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(25%)	25%
Partial	3(38%)	38%
Won	3(38%)	38%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	4,795,000.00	1,198,750.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2017	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 8 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Triple D Trading v Fanco Fan Marketing: Trade Mark Invalidity & Groundless Threat 15 Sep 2022 Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim)Partial	15 Sep 2022	Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim): Counterclaim Allowed in PartCounterclaim for invalidation of the plaintiff's trade mark was allowed. Claim for groundless threat was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Nippon Shinyaku Co v Registrar of Patents: Patent Specification Correction Dispute 13 Jul 2022 Registrar of Patents (Respondent)Lost	13 Jul 2022	Registrar of Patents (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Respondent's decision to refuse the proposed correction was overturned.
3	Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd: Copyright Infringement & Standing to Sue 25 Oct 2021 Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	25 Oct 2021	Fox Networks Group Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the Defendant; the plaintiff’s claims for primary infringement are dismissed under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court because the plaintiff lacks standing. As regards the claim for authorisation liability, the court strikes this out under O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court because there is no primary infringement by the Distributors in Singapore for authorisation liability to attach to.
4	Main-Line Corp v UOB & First Currency Choice: Interest & Costs 13 Feb 2017 First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	13 Feb 2017	First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant): PartialFCC to pay interest at 5.33% per annum on the judgment sum of S$4.795m from 16 July 2008 to 10 June 2016. There was no order as to costs between the Plaintiff and FCC.
5	Main-Line Corp v UOB & First Currency Choice: Patent Infringement, Damages Assessment 27 Dec 2016 First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	27 Dec 2016	First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of S$4,795,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	Allergan v Ferlandz Nutra: Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off & Malicious Falsehood in Eyelash Growth Products 19 Jul 2016 ALLERGAN, INC (Plaintiff)Partial	19 Jul 2016	ALLERGAN, INC (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff on trade mark infringement and passing off claimsJudgment for Plaintiff on trade mark infringement and passing off claims. Monetary amount to be determined at a later stage. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Allergan, Inc v Ferlandz Nutra: Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Injurious Falsehood 12 Jan 2015 ALLERGAN, INC (Plaintiff)Won	12 Jan 2015	ALLERGAN, INC (Plaintiff): Application by Defendant DismissedThe defendant's application for leave for its officer to act on its behalf was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Main-Line v UOB & FCC: Patent Infringement, Dynamic Currency Conversion, Account of Profits 19 Dec 2011 First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant, Third Party)Won	19 Dec 2011	First Currency Choice Pte Ltd (Defendant, Third Party): Claim for damages struck outClaim for damages against First Currency Choice Pte Ltd for infringing use outside Singapore struck out.