Vignesh Vaerhn

Vignesh Vaerhn is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2007 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 18 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in patents and trademarks. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 11% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated expertise across 40 primary practice areas, with significant experience in patents and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Patents	10 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	9 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	8 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	7 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice26% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	5 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patent Revocation	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Construction of Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trademark Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Case management stay of proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Validity of settlement agreement containing arbitration clause	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Validity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn 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	Experienced65% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Dynamic Currency Conversion	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Petrochemical Patents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Validity of Patents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inventive Steps	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Prior Art	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Experimentation Results	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medicines Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Amendments	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Dispute Resolution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unfair Competition	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pharmaceutical Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of court proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Adduction of Further Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vignesh Vaerhn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Vignesh Vaerhn has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 17 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill LLP	17 cases	94% of cases	PUBG Corp v Garena: Stay of Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration on Settlement Agreement Validity(May 2020) ASM Technology v Towa Corporation: Patent Infringement & Modularity(Jan 2018) Syntroleum v Neste Oil: Patent Infringement, Validity, and Disclosure(Sep 2014)
Allen & Gledhill	1 cases	6% of cases	Future Enterprises v McDonald's: Trade Mark Dispute over 'MacCoffee' and 'McCAFÉ'(Mar 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Vignesh Vaerhn's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.1
Complex Cases: 2 (11%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	112.0 parties avg	2.0	61%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	6%
Won	64.3 parties avg	4.3	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	52.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	23.8 parties avg	3.8
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	11(61%)	61%
Partial	1(6%)	6%
Won	6(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	151,500.00	15,150.0010 cases	10

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	5 41	Lost: 4 cases (80.0%) Won: 1 cases (20.0%)
2011	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2012	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2013	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 18 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	PUBG Corp v Garena: Stay of Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration on Settlement Agreement Validity 18 May 2020 Garena International I Private Limited (Respondent)Won	18 May 2020	Garena International I Private Limited (Respondent): Stay of Proceedings UpheldStay of court proceedings upheld pending arbitration. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	ASM Technology v Towa Corporation: Patent Infringement & Modularity 04 Jan 2018 ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	04 Jan 2018	ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd (Appellant): 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.
3	Syntroleum v Neste Oil: Patent Infringement, Validity, and Disclosure 29 Sep 2014 Syntroleum Corp (Plaintiff)Lost	29 Sep 2014	Syntroleum Corp (Plaintiff): Applications DismissedDefendant's applications for disclosure were dismissed.
4	Alterm Consortech v Public Prosecutor: Copyright Infringement in Termite Control Specifications 26 Sep 2013 Teng Siew Chin (Appellant)Won	26 Sep 2013	Teng Siew Chin (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; conviction dismissed; fine of $8,000 to be refunded (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	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.
6	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).
7	Martek v Cargill: Arachidonic Acid Patent Validity - Novelty & Inventive Step 15 Feb 2012 Martek Biosciences Corporation (Applicant)Won	15 Feb 2012	Martek Biosciences Corporation (Applicant): Appeal AllowedAppeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Patents and the Principal Assistant Registrar of Patents to revoke its Singapore Patent No. 42669 was allowed. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant its costs of these proceedings here and before the Tribunal, with such costs to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	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.
9	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.
10	Martek v Cargill: Patent Revocation, Microbial Oil Mixtures, and Infant Formula Supplementation 28 Mar 2011 Martek Biosciences Corporation (Applicant)Partial	28 Mar 2011	Martek Biosciences Corporation (Applicant): Appeal Allowed in PartAppeal against the Tribunal’s decision in the Revocation Proceedings is allowed. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant 95% of its costs for the hearing before the Tribunal and for the appeal before the High Court (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Martek v Cargill: Patent Revocation Appeal - Adducing Further Evidence 27 Dec 2010 Martek Biosciences Corp (Appellant)Lost	27 Dec 2010	Martek Biosciences Corp (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Pioneers & Leaders v Asia Pacific: Copyright Infringement & Passing Off in Horse-Racing Publication 29 Jul 2010 Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	29 Jul 2010	Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDefendant’s counterclaim being completely unmeritorious is dismissed with costs which, as with the costs of the plaintiff’s claim, shall be taxed on a standard basis unless otherwise agreed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
13	Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill: Patent Revocation Appeal - Adducing Further Evidence 02 May 2010 Martek Biosciences Corp (Applicant, Appellant)Lost	02 May 2010	Martek Biosciences Corp (Applicant, Appellant): Application dismissed with costsApplication to adduce further evidence was dismissed with costs of $5,500 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondents as costs of this application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
14	Mühlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd: Patent Validity & Infringement 22 Feb 2010 Mühlbauer AG (Appellant)Won	22 Feb 2010	Mühlbauer AG (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed with costs and the usual consequential orders. The Appellant was also granted a certificate of contested validity in respect of the Patent pursuant to s 72 of the Act.
15	Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers: Trade Mark Dispute over 'HYSTERIC GLAMOUR' and 'GLAMOUR' 14 Jan 2010 Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (Respondent)Lost	14 Jan 2010	Advance Magazine Publishers Inc (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed and ordered to pay costs of the appeal and the costs of the hearing before the PAR to Ozone.
16	Mobil Petroleum v Hyundai Mobis: Trademark Registration Refusal Appeal 04 Aug 2009 Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc (Appellant)Lost	04 Aug 2009	Mobil Petroleum Company, Inc (Appellant): Appeal dismissedThe appeal against the registration of the 'MOBIS' trademark was dismissed.
17	Mobil Petroleum v Hyundai Mobis: Trade Mark Registration Refusal - Bad Faith & Likelihood of Confusion 29 Jun 2008 Mobil Petroleum Co, Inc (Appellant)Lost	29 Jun 2008	Mobil Petroleum Co, Inc (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs.
18	Future Enterprises v McDonald's: Trade Mark Dispute over 'MacCoffee' and 'McCAFÉ' 27 Mar 2007 Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	27 Mar 2007	Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).