Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[CKP]

 

Erm...it might be a play on words..your Facts are generally true

Did you know, however, that prior to 14 February 2014, in Singapore, patent applications that have their claims examined and found to be not patentable (i.e. not novel and not inventive, you might even call them not valid in many senses) could still proceed and be granted as Singapore patents?

So if someone uses such a patent in a notification letter to you, what do you do? Spend money immediately to invalidate or.....knowing they were examined to be "invalid", get another independent assessment to confirm and then proceed with your activities?

 

 

 

Thanks for raising this issue. In response to your assertions, please read this news release by IPOS. It is worthwhile to read the entire release, from 2012.

 

http://www.ipos.gov.sg/News/ReadArticle/tabid/873/articleid/10/category/Press%20Releases/year/2012/Default.aspx

 

I quote from paragraph 5 -

 

5. The current self-assessment patent system allows patent applications to be granted regardless of the outcome of their examination reports. This means that patent applications may be granted without fully complying with patentability criteria³. This was a pragmatic approach when Singapore started its own patent system in 1995, when we did not have domestic patent search and examination capabilities. The proposed amendments to the Patents Act will introduce a new positive grant system where only patent applications which have fully positive examination reports (that is, which fully meet patentability criteria) can be granted.

 

The parts above that I have underlined and bolded for emphasis.

 

In conclusion, until the Patent Act in Singapore was amended recently, the system we had in Singapore was that of self assessment. This meant that patent applications may be granted without fully complying with patentability criteria.

 

The patent that we are discussing was granted in 2005.

 

 

 

Again, your argument is a strange one because

 

 

(1) How do you know this relaxation was applied SPECIFICALLY to Dr Ting's patent?

 

You don't claim that but that is still your suggestion that it is possible.

 

Dr Ting's patent is actually invalid but is granted thanks to this relaxed standard.

 

Just because it is possible doesn't mean it's the case for Dr Ting.

 

You simply don't know. That's why you were only able to put your argument in a question, as opposed to an assertion.

 

 

(2) In fact, I will go further than that.

 

Dr Ting' has patents granted across several other jurisdictions of supposedly higher standards than Singapore.

 

So your "relaxation in standards" argument that occurs only in Singapore

 

is somewhat a weak argument to claim/imply/suggest (using a question)

 

Dr Ting's patent "is not valid/novel/inventive".

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by CKP

[Hub_n_mona]

 

Again, your argument is a strange one because

 

 

(1) How do you know this relaxation was applied SPECIFICALLY to Dr Ting's patent?

 

You don't claim that but that is still your suggestion that it is possible.

 

Dr Ting's patent is actually invalid but is granted thanks to this relaxed standard.

 

Just because it is possible doesn't mean it's the case for Dr Ting.

 

You simply don't know. That's why you were only able to put your argument in a question, as opposed to an assertion.

 

 

(2) In fact, I will go further than that.

 

Dr Ting' has patents granted across several other jurisdictions of supposedly higher standards than Singapore.

 

So your "relaxation in standards" argument that occurs only in Singapore

 

is somewhat a weak argument to claim/imply/suggest (using a question)

 

Dr Ting's patent "is not valid/novel/inventive".

 

 

oh I am sorry, I wasn't talking about Dr Ting's patent. Please see my post again.

[Boringchap]

 

actually quite very simple, because examiners can only use the resources available to them. that and time constraints. prior art searches cannot possibly reveal every single piece of prior art. examiners can only do their best.

 

during court proceedings, more intensive prior art searches are usually carried out, and new analysis carried out may reveal more holes.

 

in addition, inventive step assessment may be subjective in nature. not to forget, judges are humans too. now to think of it, so many factors hor? gosh

 

Good explanation! Thanks.

 

So that means the following to me.

 

1. under Singapore's previous self-assessment system - almost anything can get through.

 

2. under the new system of positive grant system, at least there are experts who have looked at the patent application carefully, probably compare notes with other jurisdictions on that patent, and then let the patent through.

 

However, even under 2, some patents could still be invalidated by the Court if subsequently, you hire more experts to try to find problems with it.

[CKP]

 

oh I am sorry, I wasn't talking about Dr Ting's patent. Please see my post again.

 

Exactly, I'm still talking about Dr Ting's patent.

 

Just because it is possible in general doesn't mean it applies to Dr Ting's patent.

 

[Hub_n_mona]

 

Good explanation! Thanks.

 

So that means the following to me.

 

1. under Singapore's previous self-assessment system - almost anything can get through.

 

2. under the new system of positive grant system, at least there are experts who have looked at the patent application carefully, probably compare notes with other jurisdictions on that patent, and then let the patent through.

 

However, even under 2, some patents could still be invalidated by the Court if subsequently, you hire more experts to try to find problems with it.

 

I guess that's sort of the gist of it, isn't it?

 

Also in court proceedings, there are likely to be expert witnesses giving their testimonies, a luxury that examiners during the application process do not exactly have.

[Boringchap]

 

Exactly, I'm still talking about Dr Ting's patent.

 

Just because it is possible in general doesn't mean it applies to Dr Ting's patent.

 

 

You are absolutely right.

 

I am trying to establish facts.

 

1. His patent was granted in 2005, at a time when the patent regime in Singapore was under a self-assessment regime.

2. His patent was invalidated by the Court last year.

 

Would you agree with 1 and 2?

 

As to what conclusions a person wants to draw from above, I leave it to the reader, since all of us seem to have differing views.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Boringchap

[CKP]

 

Good explanation! Thanks.

 

So that means the following to me.

 

1. under Singapore's previous self-assessment system - almost anything can get through.

 

2. under the new system of positive grant system, at least there are experts who have looked at the patent application carefully, probably compare notes with other jurisdictions on that patent, and then let the patent through.

 

However, even under 2, some patents could still be invalidated by the Court if subsequently, you hire more experts to try to find problems with it.

 

Here we go again,

 

repeating ad nauseam the argument

"In general, it is complex,

in general, it is difficult,

in general it is easier,

etc and whatnot".

 

NONE of your posts, yes, zero of your posts

demonstrate you have any knowledge in the specifics or merits of Dr Ting's case.

 

You can only lead readers who don't think or have a clear mind

to conclude that

"in general, in general, in general" ALSO applies specifically to this case.

 

[Hub_n_mona]

 

Exactly, I'm still talking about Dr Ting's patent.

 

Just because it is possible in general doesn't mean it applies to Dr Ting's patent.

 

 

I am not sure where this is heading but ok. that question posed was more for people who feel that as long as you get a challenge from a patentee, you should immediately "invalidate". Are you of that camp? I am not sure as I was not following each post. one should still consider the business realities and the realities of the patent system.

 

I haven't seen the prior art or invalidation arguments raised for the Singapore patent, but there might be a chance these may be replicated overseas for the other patents overseas, if used to challenge other entities. Again, of course, this is postulating.

 

Here we go again,

 

repeating ad nauseam the argument

"In general, it is complex,

in general, it is difficult,

in general it is easier,

etc and whatnot".

 

NONE of your posts, yes, zero of your posts

demonstrate you have any knowledge in the specifics or merits of Dr Ting's case.

 

You can only lead readers who don't think or have a clear mind

to conclude that

"in general, in general, in general" ALSO applies specifically to this case.

 

 

wah lau eh, calm down leh. have a break!

[Boringchap]

Is there any way to get the Court ruling on the invalidation of the patent that we are talking about?

 

I am referring to the Court documents, where the Judge would have to render his opinion on why the patent should be invalidated.

 

I would like to read it!

[CKP]

 

You are absolutely right.

 

I am trying to establish facts.

 

1. His patent was granted in 2005, at a time when the patent regime in Singapore was under a self-assessment regime.

2. His patent was invalidated by the Court last year.

 

Would you agree with 1 and 2?

 

As to what conclusions a person wants to draw from above, I leave it to the reader, since all of us seem to have differing views.

 

Hello,

 

are you trying to mislead people again?

 

show the proof that the relaxed standard applied to Dr Ting's patent.

 

For example,

 

Just because the passing mark was lowered to 40 from 50

doesn't mean Dr Ting's score was 40.

Dr Ting's score of novelty could be 50, 70, or 80.

 

You don't know. You are unable to make that assertion.

 

How do you want to obfuscate now?

 

[Boringchap]

 

Hello,

 

are you trying to mislead people again?

 

show the proof that the relaxed standard applied to Dr Ting's patent.

 

For example,

 

Just because the passing mark was lowered to 40 from 50

doesn't mean Dr Ting's score was 40.

Dr Ting's score of novelty could be 50, 70, or 80.

 

You don't know. You are unable to make that assertion.

 

How do you want to obfuscate now?

 

 

You did not answer my question on whether you agree with

 

1. Dr Ting's patent was granted in 2005, at a time when the patent regime in Singapore was under a self-assessment regime.

2. Dr Ting's patent was invalidated by the Court last year.

 

I say again, are these facts or opinions?

 

Did I make any assertion on whether a 'relaxed standard' was applied to Dr Ting's patent? I said no such thing.

[CKP]

 

wah lau eh, calm down leh. have a break!

 

No, some people are here to obfuscate on this specific case

by talking non stop about

 

"in general it is difficult

in general, it is complex

in general, a significant number of patents are invalidated

in general, there is a relaxed standard in Singapore."

 

So what? How do all these specifically apply to Dr Ting's case?

 

Never say.

 

Silence.

 

to let people think it ALSO applies

 

It's the same M.O.

 

Boring.

 

Boringchap.

 

 

You did not answer my question on whether you agree with

 

1. Dr Ting's patent was granted in 2005, at a time when the patent regime in Singapore was under a self-assessment regime.

2. Dr Ting's patent was invalidated by the Court last year.

 

I say again, are these facts or opinions?

 

Did I make any assertion on whether a 'relaxed standard' was applied to Dr Ting's patent? I said no such thing.

 

 

"in general it is difficult

in general, it is complex

in general, a significant number of patents are invalidated

in general, there is a relaxed standard in Singapore."

So what? How do all these specifically apply to Dr Ting's case?

Never say.

Silence.

to let people think it ALSO applies

It's the same M.O.

Boring.

Boringchap.

Cheers

[Galantspeedz]

CKP,

 

you seem to know something about the case... can share?

 

 

very interesting that dr ting was appointed director of IPOS in 2013

Edited January 22, 2015 by Galantspeedz

[CKP]

CKP,

 

you seem to know something about the case... can share?

 

Later, weekend maybe.

 

I have already pointed quite a bit out in earlier posts

 

for example,

 

the argument that the panels of Dr Ting's swift vehicle is similar to/same as hot dog stands.

 

This is one of arguments used by the Mindef/Syntech defense lawyers.

 

[Galantspeedz]

 

Later, weekend maybe.

 

I have already pointed quite a bit out in earlier posts

 

for example,

 

the argument that the panels of Dr Ting's swift vehicle is similar to/same as hot dog stands.

 

This is one of arguments used by the Mindef/Syntech defense lawyers.

 

 

yes I noticed some things... that's why I feel you seem to have some in depth knowledge of the case

[Fuelsaver]

If news is true, then woe is to the amdk party. Use meeleeterley force to baojiak. Seebay cek ark.

 

No, some people are here to obfuscate on this specific case

by talking non stop about

 

"in general it is difficult

in general, it is complex

in general, a significant number of patents are invalidated

in general, there is a relaxed standard in Singapore."

 

So what? How do all these specifically apply to Dr Ting's case?

 

Never say.

 

Silence.

 

to let people think it ALSO applies

 

It's the same M.O.

 

Boring.

 

Boringchap.

 

 

 

"in general it is difficult

in general, it is complex

in general, a significant number of patents are invalidated

in general, there is a relaxed standard in Singapore."

So what? How do all these specifically apply to Dr Ting's case?

Never say.

Silence.

to let people think it ALSO applies

It's the same M.O.

Boring.

Boringchap.

Cheers

Higher lvl authority / ppl like to use such words.

 

In general

We have our difficulties

N the likes.

 

Then when they wanna tackle weaker party, always ask to justify till can't justify.

 

I'm starting to lose respect of ppl w authority.

[bellboy]

Bro @Boringchap, I cannot praise you further using the system as I need to praise many others before the system allows that.

 

So here's my public show of support for your arguments.

 

[CKP]

 

"So that means the following to me.

1. under Singapore's previous self-assessment system - almost anything can get through.

2. under the new system of positive grant system, at least there are experts who have looked at the patent application carefully, probably compare notes with other jurisdictions on that patent, and then let the patent through. "

----------------------------------------------

You did not answer my question on whether you agree with

 

1. Dr Ting's patent was granted in 2005, at a time when the patent regime in Singapore was under a self-assessment regime.

2. Dr Ting's patent was invalidated by the Court last year.

 

I say again, are these facts or opinions?

 

Did I make any assertion on whether a 'relaxed standard' was applied to Dr Ting's patent? I said no such thing.

 

"You did not answer my question on whether you agree"

 

i. Yes, of course. But it's a background point that is quite irrelevant to this case. I will explain below.

 

ii. Yes, but I have already answered this in #207.

What's more the critical question here is why was it declared invalid,

not whether it was or was not declared by the court to be invalid.

 

===============

 

The self assessment regime, a relaxed or sub part standard, is irrelevant to this case because:

 

(1) The fact that there was a relaxed standard in Singapore is irrelevant to Dr Ting's case

because Dr Ting has patents granted for the swift vehicle in least nine other patent offices

without the Singapore's lowered standard of patentability (self assessment system).

(2) ASSUME that, just ASSUME,

Dr Ting's patent is granted ONLY in Singapore under its sub par assessment standard

and not anywhere else outside of Singapore.

You still don't know whether Dr Ting's patent is sub par.

It could be or it could not be. You don't know.

And more importantly, you didn't claim that you don't know.

For example as mentioned in #263,

let's say the patentability passing mark in Singapore

was lowered to 40 from 50

whereby 50 is the standard outside of Singapore.

Now, that doesn't mean Dr Ting's patentability score was 40 based on anything you said.

Dr Ting's patentability score could be 50, 75, or 85.

You just don't know. You are unable to make that assertion.

Not surprisingly, you are devoid of the facts specific to this case,

and only continue to make unspoken insinuations using general information

this time, bringing up the self assessment regime,

to mislead people into thinking that just because the patent system is sub-par here,

that it necessarily follows that Dr Ting's patent was also likely to be subpar,

by merely talking at length about

"singapore's system was subpar,

singapore's system was subpar,

singapore's system was subpar"

never mind the fact you didn't explicitly assert that Dr Ting's patent was sub par

or assert that Dr Ting's patent is only granted thanks to the sub par standards here.

(3) And by the way, because we are on the topic of not answering questions (do you agree or not agree)

guess what,

you didn't answer my post in #243 thus far.

- you only said thanks for raising this issue.

- you deliberately refuse to say whether you agree or disagree

that you were wrong.

- you quietly segued to another irrelevant topic

about lowered patentability standards in Singaopre.