1 . Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp 2. Merck Sharp & Dohme (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Hovid Berhad (Ca No. 02(f)-53-07/2018(W))

1.

MERCK SHARP & DOHME (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 60181-P) .. APPELLANTS AND HOVID BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 58476-A) .. RESPONDENT [IN THE COURT OF APPEAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(IPCV)(W)-1876-10/2016

1.

MERCK SHARP & DOHME (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 60181-P) .. APPELLANTS AND HOVID BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 58476-A) .. RESPONDENT] CORUM: TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT, CJ AHMAD HAJI MAAROP, PCA RAMLY HJ ALI, FCJ MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH, FCJ NALLINI PATHMANATHAN, FCJ 2 MINORITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (by Justice Ahmad Haji Maarop, PCA; and Justice Ramly Hj Ali, FCJ)

Both the appellants in the present appeal were the plaintiffs at the High Court. They brought an action against the respondent (the defendant therein) for patent infringement of their 194 Patent, claiming that the defendant’s import, manufacture, offer for sale and stocking for the purpose of sale or offer for sale, the alendronate 70 mg tablets had infringed their 194 Patent, as they were at the material time, the registered owner of the said patent pertaining to the alendronate dosing issue. The defendant, on the other hand denied the alleged infringement and counterclaimed for a declaration that 194 Patent was invalid on the ground that the said patent exhibited no inventive step pursuant to section 56(2) of the Patent Act 1983 (the Act). In this judgment, the appellants will be referred to as the plaintiffs; and the respondent as the defendant.

On 30.8.2016, after full trial, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s infringement action against the defendant and 3 allowed the defendant’s counterclaim for invalidation of 194 Patent. The learned judge declared that 194 Patent was invalid on the ground that it lacked inventive step and as such all dependant claims related to 194 Patent were also invalid.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 19.9.2017, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court. Leave was granted on 26.6.2018. Hence the present appeal before us. Brief Factual Background

The 1st plaintiff is a company incorporated in the United States of America (USA) which has been granted a Malaysian Patent No. MY-118194-A (194 Patent) under the Patents Act 1983. Under the said patent, the 1st plaintiff produced a pharmaceutical product of alendronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt (alendronate) under the trade name “Fosamax” to inhibit bone resorption in humans. The 2nd plaintiff is a Malaysian company which holds the exclusive license from the 1st plaintiff to distribute, sell, and 4 offer to sell “Fosamax” products in Malaysia. The defendant, a Malaysian company, has been granted approval by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau to market “Alendronate 70 mg” tablets.

The 194 Patent comprises of one independent claim i.e. Claim 1, together with 21 subsidiary claims, also known as dependant claims (Claims 2-22).

There is only one independent claim in 194 Patent i.e. Claim

It is the most important claim in 194 Patent. All the dependent claims (Claims 2-22) of 194 Patent ultimately make reference to the independent Claim 1.

The essential elements of Claim 1 in 194 Patent is the use of alendronic acid (or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof) for making an oral medicament for inhibiting bone resorption in humans, (i) in a unit dosage that comprises from about 8.75 to 140 mg of alendronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, on an alendronic acid active weight basis and (ii) according to a continuous schedule having a 5 periodicity from about once every 3 days to once every 16 days.

All the dependant Claims 2–22 ultimately make reference to the independent Claim 1. The dependant claims differ from one another in terms of inter alia, the range of the unit dosage, and the frequency of the dosage. The common feature of all the dependent Claims 2–22 start with the common description of “use according to Claim 1”. Some make reference to the earlier dependent claims with ultimately make reference to the independent Claim 1.

On 30.8.2016, the learned judge granted the dependant’s application for invalidation of 194 Patent on the ground that the said 194 Patent was obvious as at the Priority Date and therefore lacked inventive step. In relation all the dependant Claims 2–22, the learned judge, referring to the decision of the Federal Court in SKB Shutter Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd v. Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 6 MLJ 293, ruled that once the independent Claim 1 was found to be invalid for lacks of inventive step, all the dependant Claims 6 2–22, were consequently invalidated without a need for the defendant to adduce evidence individually to invalidate each of them; nor was there a requirement for the court to consider separately the validity of each of them. The invalidation of 194 Patent also led to plaintiff’s infringement claim against the defendant to fall.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the same ground that there was no inventive step involved in the creation of 194 Patent. The Court of Appeal ruled that the plaintiff’s invention was indeed obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology connected with the invention, thereby disqualifying it from being patented. The Court of Appeal affirmed the consequential ruling made by the learned judge that once the main claim (the independent Claim 1) was found by the court to be invalid, all other dependent Claims 2–22 derived no legitimacy on which they could survive. In other words, once the main Claim 1, having been ruled to be invalid for lacking inventive steps, all the other dependent Claims 2–22 were rendered invalid; and therefore the complaint of infringement of the said 194 Patent had also 7 been rendered baseless. The Court of Appeal further ruled that 194 Patent was not a patentable invention and thus no legal rights related to a valid patent could emanate from it, which could be enforced, against anybody.

The plaintiffs then filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court. On 26.6.2018, this Court allowed the leave application on only one (1) question of law, namely- “where an independent claim is adjudged to be invalid, whether claims which are dependent on the said independent claim would be automatically rendered invalid without the need for the Court to consider separately the validity of each and every dependent claim[s]?”

The plaintiffs, as the appellants herein, raised only one (1) complaint in the present appeal against the decision of both the learned judge and the Court of Appeal in ruling that the plaintiffs’ dependent Claims 2–22 of 194 Patent were automatically rendered invalid upon the determination that the independent Claim 1 was invalid. 8

The learned judge had referred to the decision of this Court in SKB Shutters case (supra) as the basis for his decision in making the above ruling. The learned judge in his judgment (at paragraph 98) made the following ruling on this point: “(98) The material facts and the parties’ contentions in SKB Shutters Manufacturing are similar to this case. As a matter of stare decisis, I am bound by the Federal Court’s judgment in SKB Shutters Manufacturing and upon the invalidation of Claim 1 for lack of an inventive step –

The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling made by the learned judge on this point. At paragraph [36] of its judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled: “[36] In our considered opinion, it could not have been clearer than that. In so far as the matter of Claims is concerned, once the Main or the Principal Claim is found by the Court to be invalid, all other Dependent Claims derive no legitimacy on which they could survive. That was what had happened in this case before us. The learned JC had referred to the SKB Shutters case [supra] as a basis for his decision to rule that all the dependent claims by the Appellants were rendered invalid on account of the Main Claim 10 having been ruled to be invalid for lacking any inventive steps. With respect, we could not say that he was in error by concluding the way he did. He was bound by the decision of the SKB Shutters case [supra] and as the SKB Shutter case [supra] emanated from our apex Court, we must be bound by it as well vide the principle of stare decisis.” Submissions by Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the decision in SKB Shutters (supra) was wrong, uncertain, and/or unjust and therefore merit this Court’s departure. Learned Counsel cited, amongst others, the following reasons –

(a) the principle in the SKB Shutters is inconsistent with the Patents Act 1983 and Patents Regulations 1986 and the previous understanding and application of the roles and functions of claims, whether independent or dependent;

(b) neither the Patents Act 1983 nor the Patents Regulations 1986 provides for the principle in the SKB 11 Shutters. Except for the definition under the Patents Regulations 1986 that a dependent claim is known as a claim that includes the features of another claim, neither the Act nor the regulations attempts to treat the dependent claim any differently from the independent claim. Thus, the validity of a dependent claim ought to be assessed and determined separately from its independent claim;

(c) the statutory grounds for invalidating a patent claim, as provided for under the Patens Act 1983 do not distinguish an independent claim from a dependent claim;

(d) furthermore, the grounds for invalidating a patent claim, as provided for under section 56(2) of the Patents Act 1983 are exhaustive, owing to the word “shall”. None of the paragraphs (a) – (e) under section 56(2) of the Patents Act 1983 spoke about the automatic invalidation of dependent claims upon the invalidation ruling of their independent claim. This clearly goes against the tenets of evidentiary burden 12 of proof that the person aggrieved or the defendant is expected to discharge;

(e) the principle held in the SKB Shutters was premised on the misconceived understanding and/or practice that unless the dependent claims are redrafted to incorporate the features of the claims that they were dependent upon and were made an independent claim on its own, the dependent claims cannot be understood. Underlying this reasoning is the technical argument that the dependent claim is not able to make reference to the features of the invalidated independent claim; and

(f) the principle held in the SKB Shutters has a far reaching impact on patent claims which are already registered and/or already filed and/or will be filed in the country. It defeats the objective of the Patents Act 1983 as it will result in dependent claims redundant.

Learned counsel further submitted that the present appeal calls for a determination of the leave question. A determination of the leave would help put right the wrongs 13 which continue to be perpetuated by the lower courts which are duty-bound to accept the SKB Shutters ruling owing to the principle of stare decisis.

In the premise, learned counsel prayed that the leave question to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and the matter be remitted back to the High Court to determine separately and individually on the issue of validity of the dependent Claims 2–22 on the ground of obviousness or inventive step. At paragraph 112 of his written submission, learned counsel prayed as follows – “[112] As the validity of each and every dependent Claims 2-22 of the 194 Patent was neither contemplated nor determined by the Courts below from the viewpoint of obviousness/non-inventive step, the appellant would respectfully request that these relevant issues be remitted back to the HC for its determination”.

Submissions by Dependant’s Counsel At the outset, learned counsel for the defendant highlighted that since the leave question is only in respect of the validity 14 of the dependent Claims 2–22, irrespective of the answer to the leave question, the independent Claim 1 in 194 Patent will still be invalid a held by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This would means that the decision of the High Court and affirmed the Court of Appeal on the invalidity of the independent Claim 1, including its finding of fact on the inventive claim and common general knowledge, should not be disturbed.

On the issue of SKB Shutters ruling as raised by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that SKB Shutters had rightly set out the roles and functions of independent and dependant claims.

To strengthen her submissions, learned counsel highlighted the following points –

(a) not every claim would constitute an invention by itself. In fact, most of the time, a patent that contains only one (1) independent claim and multiple dependent claims would relate to one (1) invention only. Some 15 patent may even have more than 20 dependent claims which relate to one (1) invention only;

(b) in fact, it is acknowledged in case law that dependent claims do not reflect a proliferation of inventive concepts;

(c) regulation 19(3) states that all dependent claims must claim specific forms of invention claimed in an independent claim. This means a dependent claim is still very much tied to the independent claim;

(d) regulation 19(3) itself makes reference to section 26 of the Act which provides that a patent application shall relate to either:

(i) one (1) invention only; or

(e) where there is only one (1) invention, if the court finds that the alleged invention lacks inventive step, this would invariably means the entire patent also lacks 16 inventive step because all the independent and dependent claims relate to the same invention irrespective of the number of claims in the patent;

(f) by using the Windsurfing test which is the applicable test to determine whether a patent lacks inventive step, it is stated that the court will compare the differences between the invention and the prior art and decide whether the differences would be obvious;

(g) it would be illogical if the court finds the invention invalid after evaluating the independent claim, would come to a different conclusion when evaluating the dependent claims since all these claims relate to the same invention;

(h) it is on this basis that in a patent consisting of only one (1) invention, when the independent claim falls, the dependent claim automatically falls.

As such, learned counsel submitted that the principle “when an independent claim falls, the dependent claims 17 automatically falls” is correct and well-founded in the context of a patent containing one (1) invention only which is common in almost every patent by virtue of section 26 of the Act which states: “An application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.”

Our decision The appeal before us concerns only with the issue of automatic invalidation of dependent claims (in some jurisdiction they are referred to “subsidiary claims”) once the independent main claim is declared invalid by the court. The leave question, the memorandum of appeal and learned counsel’s submissions clearly indicate is confined only to this point. Ultimately, learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for the matter be remitted back to the High Court to hear and determine separately on the issue of validity of the dependent Claims 2–22 on the ground of obviousness or inventive step and the return of the sum of RM656,853.03 already paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Therefore, we agree with the learned counsel for the defendant, that the order of the High 18 Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, that the independent Claim I of 194 Patent being invalid for lacking inventive step, still stand and will not be disturbed in our judgment.

The independent Claim 1 (being the only independent claim in 194 Patent), was declared invalid by the High Court on the ground that the invention of ‘70 mg once a week’ in 194 Patent is obvious i.e. common general knowledge to persons skilled in the art and therefore lacks inventive step as it did not require any degree of invention. The said patent consists of altogether 22 claims. Out of these 22 claims, Claim 1 is the only independent claim whereas Claims 2–22 are all dependent or subsidiary claims. The inventive claim in 194 Patent according to the evidence of the plaintiffs’ own expert is the use of alendronic acid for making oral medicament for the oral administration of 70 mg of alendronade in a single weekly dose to treat osteoporosis. That is the core of the invention of 194 Patent, which is derived from the independent Claim 1 and being referred to in all the dependent Claims 2-22. 19

All the dependent Claims 2–22 are depending on the generality of Claim 1 in term of its ‘use’ of alendronate as expressly described as the core invention of 194 Patent as described in Claim 1. The dependent Claims 2–22 in essence incorporate all the features of the independent Claim 1. They are drafted to only make reference to the main claim described in Claim 1 without expressly setting out the features of that claim.

To better understand the issue at hand, it is important to see the brief description in each of the claim involved. As elaborately described by the learned judge in his judgment, the whole of 194 Patent provides for the following claims:

A plain reading of the descriptions on all the dependent claims above, clearly show that the strength and validity of all the dependent Claims 2–22 depend entirely on the strength and validity of the independent Claim 1. It therefore follows that once the independent Claim 1 is declared invalid by the court for being obvious and lacks of inventive step, it follow that all the dependent Claims 2–22 will suffer the same fate i.e. they are all also obvious in their ‘use’ features and therefore also lack inventive step.

An independent claim usually contains a preamble that does not recite another claim number. In contrast, a dependent claim usually will recite a prior claim number. Dependent 24 claim often recites features that might be considered secondary while an independent claim recites a combination of core or primary features. Some dependent claims, besides making reference to an earlier independent claim, also have element of independent features of their own in their claim descriptions. In that case in the event the independent claim is declared invalid, the dependent claim may still survive to be determined on its own independent features separately. In the present case before us, all the dependent Claims 2–22 have no such ‘independent features’.

Most dependent claims come with additional features that have the effect of narrowing the scope of the monopoly in the patent. The scope of monopoly as described in the main independent claim is wider and of general in nature. The features of the dependent claims do not create any new claim nor any new monopoly. They only describe the main claim in the independent claim in more specific features. Depending on the wordings of the description of the claims, the narrow scope of claims in dependent claims would fall within the scope of the wider general claim of the independent claim 25 within the same patent monopoly. It is therefore logical that once the general claim in the independent claim is declared invalid, the dependent claims must also fall. In this regard, we agree with learned counsel for the defendant that “when the independent claim is invalid, the dependent claims will be left with just limitations without the features of the independent claim. In other words, there will no longer be any meaning to the dependent claim since it is still making reference to something that no longer exists i.e. the independent claim.”

Section 26 of the PA provides that an application for the grant of a patent shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. It follows that the grant of the said 194 Patent in the present case was granted based on the premise that the said patent relates to one invention only. That being the case, it follows that all the claims in the dependent Claims 2–22, were so linked as to form a single general incentive concept. It is therefore, logical that once the ‘one invention only’ in the independent Claim 1 is declared invalid, the others must also fall, as they form a single general inventive concept. 26

That being the case, all the dependent Claims 2–22 in the present case cannot stand by themselves. The core features of the claims as initially found in the independent Claim 1 are no longer in existence. They by themselves cannot fulfil the requirements under Regulation 13 of the Patents Regulations 1986 that “the claims shall be clear and concise and fully supported by description “and shall define the invention in terms of the technical features of the invention.” Such patent, can be invalidated under section 56 (2)(b) read together with section 23 of the Act for failure to comply with the prescribed regulations.

The plaintiffs, as the patentees has never contended that 194 Patent contains more than one (1) invention at the material time. Even their own expert had testified that there is only one

In accordance with modern practice, a patentee is obliged to indicate which claims it maintained were independently valid (see: Raychem Corp’s Patents (supra)). In other words, the court only need to consider the issue of independent validity of each claims (be it independent or dependent claims) if the patentee indicate, before trial, which particular claims that need to be treated so. If amendment is required to incorporate such an indication, it must be done before trial starts but not when trial is completed. Otherwise, the court is not obliged to do so and the dependent claims will fall together with the main independent claim. This was what happened in Raychem Cop’s Patents case (supra), where, initially the patents in that case contained in total 110 claims, but before the trial ended, the patentee restricted his list of claims only to 17 claims, asserted to be independently valid, giving sufficient time to the other party to direct his evidence to proving invalidity of all of them. 28

As stated earlier, the crux of the features in all the dependent Claims 2–22, relate to the main general features of the independent Claim 1. The additional features described in the dependent Claims 2–22 comprise of more specific and detail description of the general ‘use’ of 70 mg alendronate in a single weekly dose, which form the main claim in the independent Claim 1. Those additional features are not ‘stand-alone’ claims to be considered as independent claims by themselves. They cannot stand as independent claims. Therefore, the question of asking the trial court to consider and determine each and every one of them separately as if they are independent claims despite the independent Claim 1 is declared invalid, as urged by learned counsel for the appellants, does not arise. It is clearly an act of futility and serves no purpose.

On the above ground, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are, therefore, constrained to hold that all the dependent Claims 2–22, automatically fall once the independent Claim 1 is declared invalid by the court. Our 29 decision is entirely based on our own evaluation of the factual matrix of the case, involving 194 Patent, without making any reference to the earlier ruling of this court in the case of SKB Shutters Manufacturing (supra). Therefore, the question of revisiting the SKB Shutter’s ruling, as urged by learned counsel for the appellants, does not arise.

The above decision is consistent with SKB Shutters’ ruling. It is also consistent with judicial decisions in other jurisdictions. It must be borne in mind that patent matters, like other intellectual property matters, usually involve the element of international flavour with international jurisdiction for their recognition throughout the world. The current trend is towards global harmonisation of patent laws and practices. Unless, otherwise expressly provided for in our local laws, our judicial decisions on the matter, should, as far as possible, be consistent with the decisions in other jurisdictions. However, it must also be stressed that these foreign decisions are not legally binding on our courts; they are highly persuasive for the sake of consistency. The learned judge had taken into his consideration on this issue in his judgment. He has correctly 30 warned himself that the foreign decisions are not binding on him. He appreciated that the court’s invalidation of the independent Claim 1 for not complying with the inventiveness requirement, is fortified by the similar findings of invalidation in other foreign decisions on the same patent.

In the case of GS Yuasa Corporation v GBI Marketing Sdn Bhd [2016] AMEJ 2114, the High Court has made the following observation on the issue of foreign decision (with which we agree): “It is undeniable that Intellectual Property rights (IP Rights) in respect of a particular product may be protected and enforced in many jurisdictions. The court should not take a blinkered view regarding the protection and enforcement of IP Rights. If a foreign court, especially its apex court, has decided on an issue regarding IP Rights of a particular product an identical or similar issue also arises regarding the same product in a Malaysian case, the Malaysian Court should consider the foreign judgment in deciding that issue. Needless to say, Malaysian Courts are not bound in any manner by any decision from a different jurisdiction. If 31 a Malaysian Court however reaches a decision which is identical or similar to that decided by a foreign court regarding IP Rights of the same product, this will ensure consistency and predictability in the protection and enforcement of IP Rights of that product in different jurisdictions.”

In Singapore, the Court of Appeal in the case of Sunseap Group v Sun Electric [2019] SGCA 4, adopted the same principle similar to that as pronounced in this case as well as in SKB Shutters, that when the independent claim in the patent is invalid, all the dependent claims should also be invalidated, as the dependent claims refer back to the independent claim and incorporate all its features.

In that case, (Sun Electric Pte Ltd) the respondent, the registered proprietor of a Singapore patent based on Singapore Patent Application No. 102014053414, in respect of a power grid system and a method of determining power consumption at building connection in the system, commenced a suit against the appellants for infringement of 32 its patent. The appellants denied all the allegations of infringement and as a counter claim, prayed for a declaration, inter alia, that the said patent has been at all material times invalid on the ground that it lack novelty and lack of inventive step.

At paragraph 70, of its judgment (in that case), the Singapore Court of Appeal made the following ruling: “70. However, in addition to the above, there is at least one other scenario where the patent should be revoked. This is the scenario where all the independent claims in a patent have been found to be invalid. This presupposes that the patent-holder has alleged infringement of all the independent claims in the patent and that the defendant has in turn challenged the validity of all the independent claims by way of defence. If the court finds in the defendant’s favour that the independent claims are invalid, it follows that the dependent claims must also fall. This is because, as the nomenclature suggests, dependent claims (or “subsidiary claims”) refer back to the independent claim and incorporate all its features 33 (see: Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd [2017] 3 SLRT 1334 at 1041). This would be so even if the defendant did not challenge specifically the validity of the dependent claims in its defence. Thus, in practical terms, once the defendant succeeds in establishing that all the independent claims in a patent are invalid, the dependent claims must necessarily fall away and the patent as a whole must be regarded as invalid. In such circumstances, it would also be proper for the High Court to exercise its power under s 91(1) read with s 80 to order that the patent be revoked.”

The same principle that dependent claims shall be invalidated upon invalidation of the related independent claim, was also adopted by the Federal Court of Australia in the case of EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc & Anor [2007] FC AFC 163. At paragraph [56] of its judgment, the court held that “Claim 1 was the only independent claim, and dealt with that claim. It followed that all dependent claims, including claim 4, fell once the principal claim was found to be invalid.” At paragraph (161) of the judgement, the court ruled 34 that “the invention as claimed in Claim 1 of the Patent application was anticipated and without amendment the dependent claims fell with it.”

In an earlier case of William Advanced Materials Inc. v Target Technology Co LLC [2004] 63 IPR 645, the Federal Court of Australia, held in effect that Claim 12 (in that case) was dependent on each of Claims 9 and 10 and once Claims 9 and 10 were held to be not novel, being anticipated by European Patent, it followed that Claim 12 was also not novel as it incorporates any invalidity of the earlier Claims 9 and 10. The court also ruled that claims 16, 38 and 39 were also invalid for being not novel on the ground that they depend on the invalid claims of Claims 9 and 10.

In a UK case of Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that “Claims 2 to 6 inclusive are merely variants of Claim 1 by the addition or subtraction of individual features. It is accepted that they must stand or fall with Claim 1.” 35

In the EU case of Phillips/Public availability of an email transmitted via the internet [2012] E.P.O.R 41, the same principle was adopted. In that case it was declared that “Claims 2 and 3 as dependent claims thus had no independent validity ….. Claims 2 and 3 were dependent on Claim 1 and therefore shared its fate …., and the subject matter of Claim 1 is thus inventive. The same applies to Claim 2 which depends on Claim 1”.

Conclusion Based on the above reasoning, we, the minority, would answer the leave question as follows: “where an independent claim is adjudged to be invalid, claims which are dependant on the said independent claim would be automatically rendered invalid without the need for the court to consider separately the validity of each and every dependant claim (s) if the independent claim and dependant claims relate to the same and one invention and the defendant claims have no separate independent features of themselves.” 36

In the upshot, we dismiss the appeal with costs. We affirm the decision of the courts below. Dated this 21st day of August 2019 RAMLY HJ ALI JUDGE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA Counsels/Solicitors 1. Indran Shanmuganathan (with Zaraihan Shaari, Michelle Loi Choi Yoke, Yap Khai Jian and Elisia Engku Kangon) Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co .. for the Appellants

Cindy Goh Joo Seong (with Heidi Lim Ai Yuen, and Hayden Tan Chee Khoon) Messrs Chooi & Co .. for the Respondent Cases Referred to:

SKB Shutter Manufacturing Sdn. Bhd v. Seng Kong Shutter Industries Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 6 MLJ 293 2. Raychem Corp’s Patens [1998] 2 RPC 31) 37

GS Yuasa Corporation v GBI Marketing Sdn Bhd [2016] AMEJ 2114 4. Sunseap Group v Sun Electric [2019] SGCA 4 5. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc & Anor [2007] FC AFC 163 6. William Advanced Materials Inc. v Target Technology Co LLC [2004] 63 IPR 645 7. Windsurfing International Inc v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 8. Phillips/Public availability of an email transmitted via the internet [2012] E.P.O.R 41 Legislations Referred to:

Sections 23 and 26 of the Patents Act 1983 2. Section 56(2) of the Patents Act 1983 3. Regulation 13 of the Patents Regulations 1986