ENG

Patent Litigation in Practice Series: Spotlight on Singapore: The Simplified Process vs Express Track in Singapore

Published

Nov 12 2024

Written By

pin ping oh module
Pin-Ping Oh

Partner
Singapore

As a partner in our Intellectual Property Group in Singapore and part of the Media, Entertainment & Sports team, I focus on contentious IP matters including IP infringement litigation, patent revocation actions and trade mark oppositions, but also advise clients extensively on non-contentious matters including IP commercialisation, patent and trade mark freedom-to-operate issues and brand protection.

christine saw Module
Christine Saw

Associate
Singapore

I am an associate in our Intellectual Property Group in Singapore. My practice covers both the contentious and non-contentious aspects of intellectual property, with a particular focus on enforcement and dispute resolution.

Related

Practices

Regions

Countries

Every month our international team of patent litigation experts provides a practical insight into different aspects of patent litigation in their jurisdiction. This month, we continue with Singapore and the use of the simplified process and the express track in Singapore patent infringement proceedings.

Patent litigation is well-known for being time-consuming and costly. However, Singapore has recently introduced two new litigation frameworks that could expedite the resolution of patent disputes in Singapore. 

First, a simplified track for Intellectual Property (“IP”) litigation (the “Simplified Process”) was introduced on 1 April 2022 with the aim of making IP dispute resolution more accessible to and affordable for individuals and small and medium sized companies. More recently, on 1 July 2024, an “Express Track” for all actions in the General Division of the Singapore High Court (which would include patent disputes) was implemented with the aim providing an expedited procedure for matters that are unsuited for disposal by way of an originating application or summary judgment, but that can be resolved within up to 4 days of trial.  

We provide a comparison of the two frameworks below. 

Simplified Process vs Express Track

Feature  Simplified Process
 Express Track  
Requirements 

There are 3 requirements:

  1. the dispute involves an IP right; 

  2. the monetary relief claimed by each party does not/is not likely to exceed SGD 500,000, OR all parties agree to abandon any claim for monetary relief exceeding this figure; and

  3. the case is otherwise suitable for the Simplified Process. Relevant factors include whether a party can only afford to bring or defend the claim under the Simplified Process, the complexity of the issues, and whether the estimated length of trial is likely to exceed 2 days. 
 Applies to all originating claims in the General Division of the Singapore High Court. 
How to Apply  A claimant can elect for the Simplified Process to apply (and in doing so will have to abandon any claim for monetary relief exceeding the SGD 500,000 limit). 

Alternatively, the Court may order the Simplified Process to apply, either on its own motion or on a party’s application, if it considers the claim suitable for the same.  		 All the parties to the action must consent and apply for the Express Track to apply, no later than 2 months after the filing of the last pleading.   
Cap on costs 
  • Liability: SGD 50,000
  • Assessment of damages phase (in bifurcated proceedings): SGD 25,000
 No cap. 
Case management  Apart from the requirement that trial must be completed in 2 days, the Court has broad discretion to “give directions on all matters that are necessary for the case to proceed expeditiously”.  

There are statutorily prescribed case management directions relating to the production of documents, filing of witness statements, interlocutory applications, trial and closing submissions. 

For instance: 

  • Every pleading served by a party must be accompanied by a list and copies of every document relied on to prove any allegation contained in the pleading.

  • Parties’ lists of witnesses and witness statements must be filed after pleadings have been filed. Each witness statement is limited to 30 pages, excluding exhibits.

  • Considerably shortened timelines for filing interlocutory applications.  
Appeal  The same rules governing appeals in claims brought under the normal track apply. 

However, if an appeal is brought, the appellate court may make an order to limit the costs recoverable by the successful appellant.  		 An appeal can only be brought in limited circumstances set out in sub-paragraph 4(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (e.g., an order for summary judgment, an order for the striking out of the action, an order giving security for costs, or a judgment given after the trial of an action). 

Are these frameworks suitable for patent disputes?

The biggest obstacle to either framework applying to patent disputes is likely to be the length of trial, given that such disputes tend to be more complex. 

However, both frameworks could potentially apply to more straightforward patent disputes – for instance, where the infringing product can be easily for obtained for analysis, and/or where the technology involved is less complex. These frameworks will likely be less suitable where the details of the alleged infringing product or process are not known to the claimant at the outset, where experiments need to be conducted to determine if there is infringement, and/or where expert testimony is required.