Case: ASP Pro Sdn Bhd vs. Nanomalaysia Berhad & Ors [2024] CLJU 778
Key Details of the Case:
ASP Pro Sdn Bhd, the plaintiff, brought a case against Nanomalaysia Berhad, Reza Khairi Ahmad, and Perbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia (MyIPO). The core of the dispute involves a claim by the plaintiff that it is the rightful inventor of a “graphene-based car jump starter power bank,” while the first defendant allegedly attempted to register a patent for this product under Patent Application No. PI2021007886.
The plaintiff also accused the second defendant of defamation. MyIPO was added as a nominal defendant but successfully applied to strike out the plaintiff's action against it on several grounds, including no cause of action pleaded and the plaintiff suing the wrong party.
Legal Arguments and Rulings:
The court found that MyIPO was not the appropriate party to be sued, as the proper defendant should have been the Registrar of Patents, who operates separately from MyIPO under the Patents Act 1983.
Furthermore, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff were beyond MyIPO's jurisdiction, reinforcing the decision to strike out the claim against MyIPO. The court referenced several cases to support its decision, including First Malaysia Finance Bhd v. Dato’ Mohd Fathi bin Haji Ahmad [1993] 2 MLJ 497 and Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v. Ranbaxy (M) Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 703.
Practical Implications:
This case highlights the importance of identifying the correct legal entity when filing intellectual property disputes. Businesses must ensure they understand the specific roles and jurisdictions of different bodies involved in IP registration and enforcement.
Missteps in naming defendants can lead to unnecessary legal costs and delays, as demonstrated by the striking out of MyIPO in this case.
My Comments:
This case underscores the complexities of intellectual property litigation and the critical importance of precision in legal actions. Naming the correct party is not just a procedural formality but a substantive requirement that can determine the success or failure of a case.
For businesses, this serves as a reminder to consult with legal experts who can navigate these intricacies and provide strategic guidance. The detailed references to precedent cases also illustrate how past rulings shape current judicial decisions, highlighting the evolving nature of IP law.
If you have any questions regarding the article, please feel free to contact our managing partner, Eugene Yeong.
Commenti