+65 6333 9525
/
singapore@henrygoh.com.sg
Henry Goh Singapore Henry Goh Singapore Henry Goh Singapore Henry Goh Singapore
Navigation
  • Firm
  • Expertise
  • People
  • Updates
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Offices
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
novartis-ag-and-another-v-ranbaxy-malaysia-sdn-bhd

Novartis AG and Another v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
by Ameen Kalani (April 2014)

In the case of Novartis AG and Another v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. [2013] 2 SLR 117, the plaintiff was the proprietor of a Singapore patent and the defendant sought to import a pharmaceutical product which related to the plaintiff’s patent. Under the Singapore Medicines Act, the defendant’s had a duty to inform the Plaintiff of their applications for import licenses.

On receiving the information, plaintiff commenced an action to declare that the import licenses if granted and the products imported and marketed in Singapore would infringe their patent. The defendant counterclaimed that the patent was invalid as it had been anticipated by the prior art. Subsequently, the plaintiffs took out an application to amend their patent claims to enhance clarity, to highlight the inventive contributions of the patent and to reduce the number of claims, as well as to further distinguish the claims in the patent from the prior art cited by the defendant.

The Court had to decide if the plaintiff’s intended amendments would result in the specification disclosing any additional matter. The threefold test as laid down in Bonzel (T) v Intervention Limited (No. 3) [1991] RPC 553 was adopted. Firstly, to ascertain through the eyes of the skilled addressee what is disclosed, both explicitly and implicitly in the application. Secondly, to do the same in respect of the patent as granted and thirdly to compare the two disclosures and decide whether any subject matter relevant to the invention has been added whether by deletion or addition. The comparison is strict in the sense that subject matter will be added unless such matter is clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application either explicitly or implicitly. On the facts, the Court held that the intended amendments would lead to a narrowing, not expanding, of the scope of the patent and would not add matter to the patent specifications.

The Court also said that a patentee must act without undue delay in applying to amend the patent claims upon discovering relevant prior art. In determining whether the Court ought to exercise its discretion against the grant of leave to amend on ground of undue delay, reference was made to Matbro Limited v Michigan (Great Britain) Limited [1973] RPC 823 “… mere delay is not, of itself, necessarily sufficient to justify refusal of amendment. There must have been or be likely to be some detriment to the respondents or to the general public caused by such delay before it can be an effective bar to relief”. On the facts, the Court held that there was no undue delay on part of the plaintiff in applying for the amendment although they were aware of prior art cited in proceedings before the European Patent Office in 2006 and 2009 since they had thought that the prior art was not relevant.

Download
shadow

Categories

News and Events
Singapore – Law and Practice Updates
Newsletters

Recent Posts

Syncing Music Copyright with the Beat of IP
by Lim Eng Leong (April 2025)
The theme for World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April 2025 is “IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP” ...
Understanding Post-Grant Patent Opposition: Key Insights and Strategies
by Oon Yen Yen (April 2025)
The Patents (Amendment) Act 2022 together with the Patents (Amendment) Regulations 2022 brought a wave of changes to patent practice ...
Top 8 Tips Before Starting Cosmetic Product Business in Malaysia
by Lee Suet Yin (December 2024)
Cosmetic products are a necessity in a modern world where everyone would like to look their best. As a consumer, ...
Graphical User Interface (GUI) Designs in Malaysia
by Yan Pei Chun (December 2024)
With the evolution and advancement of computer technologies, particularly the rise of smart device applications, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) have ...
Legal Showdown: The Battle for ‘Copper Chimney’ Trademark Rights in Malaysia
by Natasha Chuah (August 2024)
An insight into the latest ruling regarding non-use of trademarks in Malaysia Imagine you are a brand owner looking ...

Contact Us

2 Venture Drive
#15-21 Vision Exchange
Singapore 608526
+65 6333 9525
+65 6333 9527
singapore@henrygoh.com.sg

Useful Links

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS)
Association of Singapore Patent Agents (ASPA)

Sign Up Newsletter

Make sure you don’t miss interesting happenings
by joining our newsletter program.

Copyright © 2025 Henry Goh (S) Pte Ltd
  • Terms of Service
  • /
  • Privacy Policy
  • /
  • Data Protection Notice
  • /
  • Disclaimer
  • /