The decision of the Federal Court (“FC”) concerns the validity of a Malaysian patent in respect of a floor trap (“the said patent”) The facts of the case show that the Appellant brought an action against the Respondent for, inter alia, infringement of the said patent and the Respondent in return, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the patent is invalid on the usual grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The High Court ruled in favour of the Respondent and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and hence the appeal.

Between January 2017 and February 2018, eight companies have been hauled up by the Personal Data Protection Department (“PDPD”) for breaching the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA”). Three out of the 8 companies were charged in 2017

In the recent case of Merck KGaA v Leno Merketing Sdn Bhd (“Merck”), the Federal Court (“FC”) decided on the question on whether the High Court, in exercising its power to hear appeals emanating from the Registrar of trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1976 (“TMA”) is acting in its original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction, and bearing such jurisdictions, can an appeal emanating from the Registrar be appealed to the FC?

In the recent case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp & Anor v Hovid Bhd (“Merck”), the IP High Court at Kuala Lumpur confirmed that Swiss-type claims are allowed in Malaysia. A “Swiss-type claim” is a claim intended to cover the second or subsequent medical use (or indication) of a known substance or composition.

Owner of a registered trade mark may apply for a TDO pursuant to the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (“the Act”) to declare that another mark or get-up is being used by any other person in the course of trade to infringe his statutory rights. A TDO is seen as an effective legal measure to combat counterfeit goods in the market when the identities of the infringers are not known.