Yeo Javier

Yeo Javier is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2020 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in patents and costs.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Yeo Javier has demonstrated expertise across 7 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and patents.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	22% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Patents	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Inventions	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Yeo Javier has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Yeo Javier has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	2 cases	100% of cases	Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: Patent Infringement & Validity Dispute(Jul 2020) Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: CVD Diamond Patents, Validity, and Infringement(Feb 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Yeo Javier's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Partial	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2020	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: Patent Infringement & Validity Dispute 21 Jul 2020 IIa Technologies Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	21 Jul 2020	IIa Technologies Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDefendant's counterclaim that SG 872 and SG 508 were invalid was dismissed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: CVD Diamond Patents, Validity, and Infringement 06 Feb 2020 IIa Technologies Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	06 Feb 2020	IIa Technologies Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for Defendant in partSG 508 found invalid and not infringed.