Law of Confidence

Doctrinal Basis of the Action

• Contract

• Tort

• Equity – principle of good faith

• Equitable property

• Sui generis
Law of Confidence
Breach of Confidence

• Information must have the necessary quality of confidence about it

• Information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an

obligation of confidence

• There must have been an unauthorized use of that information to the

detriment of the party communicating it.
Law of Confidence
Key Cases

• Coco v A N Clark (moped engine; no injunction)

• Seager v Copydex (carpet grip)

• Saltman Enginnering v Campbell Engineering (drawing for tools)

• Vestwin Trading P L v Obegi Melissa (Sg;

Copyright Act
To obtain copyright protection in Sg, the following conditions must be met

• There exists a work or a ‘subject-matter other than a work’ on which the law
confers protection.

• Exists a connecting factor between the author of the work and Singapore

• Work satisfies the requirement of originality

• Work is reduced to some material form

Copyright Act
- Work / Subject other than work

Work Subject other than work

Literary Sound recording
Dramatic Cable programing
Musical TV and sound broadcast
Artistic Work Published editions of authors works
Copyright Act
Originality (considerations)

• The requirement of originality vs expression of inventive thought

• Sufficient skill, labour and judgement

• Originality of derivative work

• Creative efforts versus ‘sweat of the brow’ efforts.

Copyright Act
Originality vs expression of inventive thought

• Copyright law does not discriminate between works that are “great
masterpieces of imaginative literature, art and music”, and works that
may be “complete rubbish and utterly worthless”. All are original in the
eyes of the law if they originate from the author through the author’s
own efforts and are not slavish copies of another person’s work.
Copyright Act
Originality: Sufficient skill, labour and judgement

• In assessing whether a work is original, courts’ attention focused on

whether sufficient skill, labour, judgement, capital, knowledge or taste
has been expended in the creation of the work.

• Walter v Lane c.f G A Cramp & Sons Ltd v Frank Smythson Ltd (CP
denied, compilation)
Copyright Act
Originality and derivative work

• Expanding sufficient skill, labour and judgement: Not copying per se

• Transformative or material change:

• sufficient “to impart the product some quality or character which
the raw material did not possess, and which differentiates the
product from the raw material.’
Copyright Act
Creative efforts v ’sweat of the brow’ efforts
Patents Acts (Cap 221, 2005 Rev Ed)
May be granted for an invention which is a product or a process. The invention
must satisfy the following conditions:

• It is new

• It involves an inventive step

• It is capable of industrial application

• Further states: would not generally be expected to encourage offensive, immoral

or anti-social behaviors
 Patents Act
Right to Claim Priority

• The date of filing of the first application, called the priority date,

• Is the effective date of filing for the examination of novelty and inventive
step or non-obviousness for the subsequent application claiming
the priority of the first application.
• The prior art would be everything made available to the public before
the priority date, i.e. the date of filing of the first application.
Patent Act
Subject matter not considered invention

• A discovery, scientific theory, mathematical method

• Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation

whatsoever

• A scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or

doing business, or a program for a computer

• Presentation of information
Patents Act
Invention is ’new’ if it not does form part of state of art

• If a known product is disclosed in a form which makes is suitable for a

stated use, it is no longer new notwithstanding that it has never been
described for that use.
Patents Act
Inventive Step: To determine if an invention is obvious

• First identify the inventive concept embodied in the patent

• Assume the mantle of the normally skilled but unimaginative person in
the art and at the priority date of the patent and impute to him what was,
at that date, common general knowledge of the art.
• Identify what, if any, differences exist between that knowledge and the
patented invention
• Consider whether, without knowledge of the invention, those differences
constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skill in the
the art of whether they require any degree of invention.
• “Machine-or-transformation” test. A process or method invention is
patentable if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or if it
transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.
Patent Search and Examination
• Supplementary Examination
• Supplementary examination occurs where the applicant seeks to rely on a PCT
application with a clear IPRP or the acceptance/allowance or grant of a
corresponding application in Australia, Canada (for English applications), Japan,
New Zealand, South Korea, the UK, the USA, and at the EPO (for English
applications).
• Within 54 months
• Under supplementary examination, IPOS conducts examination to ensure the
application conforms to Singaporean patent practice. Supplementary examination
considers (claims as related to morality, doubling of patents, supported by
description, relates to MOT, applications include added subject matter)