Tan Lijun

Tan Lijun is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in patents and injunctions. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 14% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Lijun has demonstrated expertise across 25 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	5 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced59% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Patents	4 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized86% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Pharmaceutical Law	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Issue Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patent Invalidity	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Therapeutic Products Regulation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Therapeutic Goods Regulations	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Dynamic Currency Conversion	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Lijun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medicines Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun 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	Tan Lijun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Lijun has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill LLP	4 cases	57% of cases	Energenics Pte Ltd v Musse Singapore Pte Ltd: Inventorship Rights & Patents Act Dispute(Jul 2013) Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v DBS Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Dynamic Currency Conversion(Jul 2012) AstraZeneca v Sanofi-Aventis: Patent Infringement, Medicines Act s12A, Product Licensing(Jan 2012)
Bird & Bird ATMD LLP	3 cases	43% of cases	Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme: Issue Estoppel & Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Dispute(Sep 2019) Millennium Pharmaceuticals v Drug Houses of Australia: Patent Infringement & Injunctions(Apr 2019) Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Drug Houses of Australia: Patent Infringement & Therapeutic Product Registration(Jun 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Lijun's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.1
Complex Cases: 1 (14%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	29%
Neutral	16.0 parties avg	6.0	14%
Partial	33.3 parties avg	3.3	43%
Won	22.5 parties avg	2.5	29%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	24.7 parties avg	4.7

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Lijun's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(25%)	25%
Neutral	1(13%)	13%
Partial	3(38%)	38%
Won	2(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	3 12	Neutral: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 2 cases (66.7%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme: Issue Estoppel & Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Dispute 29 Sep 2019 Merck KGaA (Plaintiff)Partial	29 Sep 2019	Merck KGaA (Plaintiff): Preliminary issue application granted in partThe court determined that MSD is bound by the UKCA decision that the governing law of the 1970 Agreement and 1975 Letter is German law and that the use of the word Merck per se constitutes a breach of clause 7.
2	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).
3	Millennium Pharmaceuticals v. Drug Houses of Australia: Patent Infringement & Therapeutic Product Registration 26 Jun 2018 Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	26 Jun 2018	Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd (Defendant): Striking-out application allowed in partDefendant's striking-out application allowed in part; Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction dismissed. No monetary amount specified.
4	Energenics Pte Ltd v Musse Singapore Pte Ltd: Inventorship Rights & Patents Act Dispute 18 Jul 2013 Musse Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	18 Jul 2013	Musse Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant): Claims against Musse Singapore related to Mr. Mansel's inventorship dismissedEnergenics' claims related to Mr. Mansel's inventorship were dismissed.
5	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v DBS Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Dynamic Currency Conversion 19 Jul 2012 DBS Bank Ltd (Defendant)Lost	19 Jul 2012	DBS Bank Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDefendant's counterclaim for invalidating the Patent is dismissed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	AstraZeneca v Sanofi-Aventis: Patent Infringement, Medicines Act s12A, Product Licensing 18 Jan 2012 Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	18 Jan 2012	Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant): Application dismissedThe defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
7	Asia Pacific Publishing v Pioneers & Leaders: Copyright Infringement and Passing Off Dispute 26 Jul 2011 Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	26 Jul 2011	Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed. The Appellant is entitled to damages against the Respondent for groundlessly threatening the Appellant with copyright infringement under s 200(1) of the Act (which shall be assessed by an assistant registrar), and an injunction restraining the Respondent from making further threats against the Appellant in respect of the subject matter of these proceedings. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.