Plaintiff Case Study

Invalidation of the patent in suit recently IEV International Pty Ltd v Sadacharamani a / l Govindasamy [2008] 2 MLJ 754, the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia validity of two patents have been put on trial and the Court found that the two patents invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step.

The plaintiff has filed an application to strike out patents Malaysia Defendant No. MY-119064-A and MY-119147-A as the invention described in the '064 and' 147 Patents lack of novelty and inventive step.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants served as Office Manager Malaysia Plaintiffs between January 1991 and December 1992 and has access to information and documents relevant to Plaintiffs' products and their patent documents confidential. Soon

Plaintiff has presented evidence before the publication of such paintings dated between June 1989 and June 1992, which was owned by the Plaintiff was exposed to the public in Malaysia, articles have been published in various countries in connection with the invention that has been patented in Malaysia Plaintiffs own patent No. MY-103283-A, which confirms that there is evidence before the priority date of 1 September 1993 and 3 September 1993 and also by the provision of the '283 patent and foreign patents are

In its judgment, the Court first touch on whether the plaintiffs can be considered a "person aggrieved" under Section 33C of the Act. Section 33 requires that a request to revoke the patent can only be filed by a "person aggrieved" without any further definition. In its judgment, the Court explained the meaning of 'person aggrieved' in the judgment and stated that these words have no special technical meaning and must be interpreted liberally.

The court held that the plaintiff has clearly satisfied the requirements above and therefore qualified as an aggrieved person and is therefore entitled to file an application to cancel the '064 and' 147 patents.

The court has accepted the evidence presented by Plaintiffs in the form of articles published between December 1990 and May 1991 by the plaintiff in various countries, including Malaysia, set the Plaintiff role in inventing, developing and manufacturing devices or products in question in relation to something new and decide in favor of the plaintiff. The court also took into account the date of adoption of these products by the plaintiff contrary to the