UK: Inventive Step In Malaysia

Last Updated: 2 September 2018
Article by Chris Hemingway

The Federal Court has recently issued a decision, reported as Spind Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Justrade Marketing Sdn Bhd & Anor [2018] 4 MLJ, which is significant as it is only the second time a patent case has reached the apex court in Malaysia.

Readers may recall that the first patent decision by the Federal Court, reported as SKB Shutters Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 6 MLJ, resulted in the finding that if an independent claim in a patent is held invalid, all the claims dependent thereon must also be held invalid, due to the inability of the court to 'redraft' a dependent claim to include the text of the independent claim. This decision significantly weakened the patent system, causing great concern among both practitioners and patent owners alike. The local IP associations worked with the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) in preparing amendments to the Patents Act to address this issue (primarily adding a clarification to explicitly give the Court the power of amendment) and submitting the same to the AG Chambers. However, a draft bill has not yet been prepared and given the dramatic change of government in May (the first time in over 60 years), it seems unlikely that the proposed amendments will be laid before Parliament anytime soon.

The Spind case concerned Malaysian patent MY-125567-A for a floor trap which had five features, namely: (i) embedded in the floor slab; (ii) allowed liquid to flow in a concentric S-flow manner; (iii) had three parts which formed a gully/trap; (iv) designed to enable a built-in water seal to be formed ('fluid tight feature'); and (v) capable of being repaired in the event of damage to the internal parts. It was common ground that features (i)–(iii) were also present in prior art patent US3042210, but there was a difference in opinion for the remaining features. The High Court found that the patent was invalid for not being an invention, as well as lacking novelty and inventive step, a decision which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Leave was granted to appeal to the Federal Court and raise the following questions:

  1. whether for the purpose of considering whether a patented invention is inventive (or not obvious), the court is required to apply and carry out the four-steps test from the case of Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 (or more commonly known as the 'Windsurfing test')
  2. whether there is a distinction to be drawn between determining the 'claimed features' of the claims of a patent (for the purposes of assessing novelty and infringement) and determining the 'inventive concepts' of the invention in the patent (for the purpose of assessing inventiveness)?
  3. if the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, whether an assessment of the 'inventive concepts' of the invention is to be confined to just the claims of the patent or should be construed from reading the patent specifications as a whole and with the common knowledge of the skilled person?

Prior to answering question 1 the Federal Court reviewed case law on inventive step over the last 100 years or so, primarily from the UK (as Malaysian law is based on the same), but including other countries too, culminating in endorsement of the Windsurfing test as 'a good starting point for analysing the issue of inventive step'. Nevertheless, they also agreed with the caution noted by the Singapore court in First Currency Choice Pte Ltd v Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd and another appeal [2008] 1 SLR 335 CA against over-elaborating the statutory requirement, and ultimately the court must always bear in mind that the question is 'simply whether the invention is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having regard to the prior art'. Interestingly the Federal Court found it unnecessary to adopt the restated version of the test in Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA and another [2007] EWCA Civ 588 CA, and there was no discussion on the doctrine of equivalents as more recently established in Actavis UK Limited and others (Appellants) v Eli Lilly and Company [2017] UKSC 48. Therefore question 1 was answered in the affirmative in that the Windsurfing test is the preferred approach for inventive step.

In answering questions 2 and 3, the Federal Court referred to their earlier decision in SKB Shutters , which in turn referred to Electric and Musical Industries Ltd&Ors v Lissen Ltd&Anor (1939) 56 RPC 23 where it was stated 'one looks at the language of the claims which define the scope and monopoly claimed' and restated 'that in the determination of novelty and inventive step alike, it is the claims that must be considered'. In addition, the following was quoted 'what the court is concerned with is not the inventive concept, if any, in the preferred embodiments but the inventive concept put forward in the claims' from Brugger and others v Medic-Aid Ltd [1996] RPC 635 Ch D. Furthermore the 'problem and solution' approach was rejected, following Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) (2007) 235 ALR 202 HC. Nevertheless, the Federal Court subsequently applied the principles of purposive construction as set out in Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd and others [2004] UKHL 46 HL i.e. 'what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean'.

Therefore question 2 was answered in the affirmative: 'in determining both the scope of the claims for assessing novelty and the inventive concept for assessing inventiveness, the court must look at the claims in the patent. However, the inventive concept is not one and the same as the claims; it is the core or essence of the invention'.

Question 3 was answered in the negative. 'The inventive concept of an invention is to be assessed by reference to the claims. It cannot be a vague or generalised concept excluded from the claims but derived from the specification as a whole'.

The answers for questions 1 and 2 probably do not give too much concern for practitioners, who are familiar with the Windsurfing test and Kirin Amgen purposive construction. However, there is scope for confusion and misinterpretation in relation to the answer to question 3, especially if it is taken out of context.

Reading the answer to question 3 in isolation may give the impression that the claims alone define the invention without reference to the rest of the specification. However, when read in context it is apparent that this is not the case and the purposive construction approach is appropriate. Nevertheless it should be noted that the inventive feature (which may be an effect or function) must be stated in the claim to avoid being disclaimed. Overall this appears to be a reasonable balance.

With reference to the patent in suit, feature (iv) was purposively construed as being disclosed by the prior art (or was obvious in light thereof), and feature (v) was disregarded as the relevant text was not found or alluded to in the claims. It may be of note that feature (v) was only referred to in the background – notwithstanding the omission from the claims perhaps the argument for inclusion as an inventive step may have been stronger if it had been stated as an advantage after the embodiment of the invention in the description or elsewhere.

There are several other points of interest. The Malaysian Patents Act defines an invention as 'an idea of an inventor which permits in practice the solution to a specific problem in the field of technology'. The High Court found that the patent was not an invention as there was no specific problem in the field; and that even assuming there was such a problem, it was not a general problem in the field of technology but only related to an existing product. This was not challenged in the Court of Appeal and not raised as an issue to the Federal Court. However there is now a concern in light of the High Court decision that a much higher threshold has to be reached to meet the requirement of being an invention. It seems unlikely that this view is correct, especially given that Malaysian law also provides for an incremental invention in the form of a 'Utility Innovation' (a type of Utility Model requiring novelty only), and it is unfortunate that the Federal Court did not take it upon themselves to review the same.

Another point raised was in relation to the admissibility of Expert Witness evidence. It is common for parties in Malaysia to each hire a patent attorney, often from a more developed country, to assist the Court in understanding the technology and construing the claims. However the Federal Court has affirmed the stance from SKB Shutters in that the role of the Expert Witness 'is primarily to assist the court in the technology; it is for the court itself to don the mantle of the skilled person and determine the question of inventiveness'. The Federal Court also quoted the evidence Act 'when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art ... the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in that foreign law, science or art... are relevant facts'. In this case the Expert Witness had no hands-on or practical experience of plumbing and sanitary systems and therefore his personal opinion on the inventiveness was deemed not admissible. This seems like a rather harsh judgement based on equating the real 'persons specially skilled' under the Evidence Act with the nominative 'person having ordinary skill in the art' under the Patents Act, which are not the same thing. As a result, it appears that the evidence from patent attorneys as expert witnesses may be less likely to be considered admissible in future.

Notwithstanding the concerns mentioned above, the Federal Court judgement provides useful guidance on inventive step, which is often regarded as one of the most difficult areas of patent law. It is hoped that the issue regarding the maintenance of dependent claims will be resolved in the near future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions