Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court set aside an arbitral award that contained passages copied from an earlier award where the same arbitrator presided in both arbitrations with different co-arbitrators. The court held that the tribunal denied the parties natural justice in drawing on submissions made in the earlier arbitration unknown to the current parties and on which they had no opportunity to make submissions. The decision calls into question the wisdom of appointing common arbitrators to similar or related arbitrations and gives strength to arguments in favour of publication of awards. Discovery of the copying in this case was fortuitous, with one set of counsel acting in all arbitrations. Written by Dr Cameron Ford OAM, barrister at William Forster Chambers.

This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Patent infringement An action for patent infringement in Singapore is governed by the Part XII of the Patents Act (Cap 221). All claims of patent infringement must be commenced in the Singapore High Court—Patents Act, s 67 read with Patents Act, s 2. Who can sue? Only the registered proprietor of the patent and/or the holder of an exclusive licence under the patent has the locus standi to bring an action for patent infringement under the Patents Act, ss 67(1) and 74(1) respectively. A co-proprietor of a patent may commence proceedings for patent infringement without the concurrence of the other co-proprietors, subject to the requirement that all co-proprietors be named in the proceedings. However, should these co-proprietors be made defendants to the proceedings, they will not be liable for costs or expenses unless they enter appearance and participate in the proceedings. If an exclusive licensee brings an infringement claim, the proprietor of the patent need not be

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Performance rights protect a performer’s live or recorded dramatic and musical performances from having unauthorised recordings or broadcasts made of them, and from other unauthorised dealings in them. Performance rights now comprise a series of economic rights in performances which include non-property, property and moral rights, affording performers of qualifying performances a right to consent to and receive equitable remuneration for certain reproductions of their performances. Performance rights are particularly useful to protect the rights of performers in relation to ‘bootleg’ performances (ie when a recording is made of a live performance without the performer’s consent). Unauthorised use of performance The exclusive rights given to performers for their performances under the Copyright Act (Cap 63) can be divided into two main categories: • a primary right against the following unauthorised uses of a performance when a person: ◦ makes a direct or an indirect recording of the performance in any manner or medium

Arbitration analysis: How does hearsay evidence apply to the rules of natural justice in arbitration cases? Celeste Ang, principal, and Rian Matthews, local principal, from Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow, Singapore, discuss their recent international arbitration case BNX v BOE.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Designs Designs increasingly provide the edge to many consumer and industrial products, either improving functionality or aesthetics. Seeking registered protection becomes important when failing to do so may result in the loss of both design rights and copyright. A registered design right can protect the appearance of the whole or part of an article. A design falling within the scope of the Registered Designs Act (Cap 266) means features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to any article by any industrial process. In Singapore, there is no specific legislation which protects unregistered designs and such unregistered designs are protected under copyright laws. Relevant legislation and subsidiary legislation • Singapore registered designs: the Registered Designs Act as amended • the Registered Designs Rules (R 1) GN No S 504/2000 (Revised Edition 2002) • the Registered Designs (International Registration) Rules 2005 No S 177/2005 • Singapore copyright: the Copyright Act (Cap 63) • the

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Grounds for revocation of a patent Pursuant to section 80(1) of the Patents Act (Cap 221), a patent may be revoked on the grounds that: • the invention is not a patentable invention (in other words, it is not novel, does not involve an inventive step and/or is not capable of industrial application) • the patent was granted to a person who is not entitled to be granted that patent • the patent specification does not disclose the invention clearly and completely for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art • the patent specification discloses an additional matter in the application beyond that is disclosed in the application • an amendment or correction was made to the patent specification which should not have been allowed • the patent was obtained fraudulently, on any misrepresentation and on any non-disclosure or inaccurate disclosure of any prescribed material information, and • there

Arbitration analysis: In Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PVN) v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines-ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] SGCA 50, the Singapore Court of Appeal set aside an arbitral award for breach of the fair hearing rule, after a tribunal introduced a reasoning (that a second termination notice replaced an earlier one) not raised by either party, leading to a US$307m award. The court held that this unforeseeable reasoning violated natural justice, as PVN had no chance to address it and could have presented further expert evidence. While confirming the issue fell within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the court refused remission, finding that fairness concerns and prejudgment risks outweighed procedural correction. The decision underscores Singapore’s strict adherence to natural justice and clarifies that remission is inappropriate where a tribunal’s reasoning departs materially from the parties’ cases. Written by Elodie Dulac, partner of King & Spalding (Singapore) LLP.

Arbitration analysis: A recent Singapore High Court case confirmed the default position under Singapore law that unsuccessful applications to set aside an arbitral award will be awarded costs on a standard basis rather than on an indemnity basis. Costs on an indemnity basis will only be awarded in exceptional circumstances. An application for the court to fix the quantum of costs is not an opportunity for a party to request the court to switch the basis of the costs order from a standard to an indemnity basis. Written by Wei Ming Tan, senior associate at CMS Holborn Asia.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court evaluated the question of how to establish when a shareholders’ dispute should be referred to arbitration or to court under the relevant company law. Shaun Lee of Bird & Bird outlines the nuance and precedents for a decision that will be of considerable interest to practitioners.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. It discusses infringement of a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). Infringement A person infringes a registered trade mark if, without the consent of the trade mark owner, they use in the course of trade, a sign which is identical or similar to the trade mark and in relation to identical/similar goods or services, and such use is likely to confuse the public. Where the sign and the goods/services are identical to the mark, there is no need to prove confusion. The Trade Marks Act (Cap 332) accords a special level of protection to ‘well-known’ trade marks, regardless of whether they have been registered in Singapore. This will be discussed below. The requirement of ‘use’ A non-exhaustive list of acts which amount to use of a sign include: • applying it to goods or the packaging thereof • offering or exposing goods for sale, putting them on the market

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. The trade mark registration system in Singapore is governed by the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332) and is administered by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). Although a trade mark which has been in use in Singapore is not registered, it is still afforded protection under the common law tort of passing off. Extent and term of trade mark registration As in other jurisdictions, protection provided by trade mark registration in Singapore is territorial, ie limited within Singapore only. Registration lasts for a period of ten years and takes effect from the filing date of the trade mark application. It can be renewed indefinitely for further periods of ten years. Electronic or manual filing Applications for trade mark registration may be filed either through electronic filing via the IPOS website or manually. First-to-file rule The Singapore trade mark registration system follows the ‘first-to-file’ rule in the

Arbitration analysis: In DSV and another v DSU, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set aside a USD300 million partial award in a Singapore-seated arbitration. The essence of the set-aside application was whether the Tribunal had breached natural justice by ruling that the scope of the substantive arbitration did not extend to an issue raised by DSV and DSW in submissions in an earlier emergency arbitration, but which was not pleaded subsequently in the Statement of Defence. The court held that the submissions in the emergency arbitration were not pleadings, did not survive the determination of the grant of interim relief in the emergency arbitration and did not delineate the issues in the substantive arbitration. Only the pleadings in the substantive arbitration could define the issues the Tribunal needed to decide in the substantive arbitration. Furthermore, the Tribunal had heard both parties on precisely the question as to whether the issue had been pleaded and was in play. The Tribunal’s finding that the issue was not in play would amount at most to an error and not a breach of natural justice. Written by Amanda Lees, partner at King & Wood Mallesons.