Dextra Asia v Mariwu: Patent Infringement & Novelty of Bartec Concrete Reinforcement Process

Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Dextra Manufacturing Co Ltd sued Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for patent infringement related to the Bartec process used in reinforcing concrete. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, considered new evidence regarding the novelty of the Bartec patent, specifically focusing on allegations of prior use in France and Hong Kong. The court found that the new evidence did not establish the invalidity of the Bartec patent due to prior use and ruled in favor of Dextra.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dextra Asia sues Mariwu for patent infringement. Court examines the novelty of the Bartec process for concrete reinforcement, focusing on prior use.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Dextra Asia Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Dextra Manufacturing Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daniel LimShook Lin & Bok
Cindy QuekShook Lin & Bok
Wong Siew HongInfinitus Law Corporation
Kalaiselvi SingaramInfinitus Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Dextra owns rights in Asia to the Bartec patent, used in reinforcing concrete.
  2. Mariwu allegedly infringed on the Bartec patent.
  3. Mariwu argued the Bartec patent lacked novelty due to prior use in France and Hong Kong.
  4. Dextra and CCL collaborated in 1994 to pressure Mure to reduce royalty payments.
  5. Further evidence concerned correspondence between Dextra, CCL, and Mure in 1994.
  6. Mure sued CCL for infringement when CCL unilaterally terminated their license.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Another v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd, Suit 641/2004, [2007] SGHC 51
  2. Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Anor v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd, , [2006] 2 SLR 154
  3. Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye, , [1998] 1 SLR 234

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dextra collaborated with CCL Systems Limited to pressurize Mure regarding the Bartec patent.
Lyon meeting held between Mure, Dextra, and CCL representatives.
FAST sent a letter to Mure.
FAST sent a letter to CCL.
CCL sent a fax to Mr. Pithon with a draft letter.
FAST sent a letter to Mure.
CCL sent a letter to Mure.
CCL sent a fax to FAST.
CCL sent a letter to Mure.
Suit filed by Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Another v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd
Dr. Pithon wrote a letter to Mure.
First judgment issued in Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Anor v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd [2006] 2 SLR 154.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Patent Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found that Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd infringed on Dextra's patent.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Novelty of Patent
    • Outcome: The court held that it was not established that the Bartec patent is invalid because of prior use, either in France or in Hong Kong.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court considered the admissibility and weight of further evidence presented by Mariwu.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 1 SLR 234

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Patent Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Patent Infringement Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Anor v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR 154SingaporeThe current judgment is a continuation of this case after the appeal was remitted to the trial judge.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che ChyeN/AYes[1998] 1 SLR 234SingaporeCited for the principle regarding the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bartec
  • Patent
  • Novelty
  • Prior Use
  • Infringement
  • Royalties
  • Priority Date
  • Commercialisation

15.2 Keywords

  • patent
  • infringement
  • novelty
  • Bartec
  • concrete
  • construction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Patents90
Patent Validity80
Patent Infringement70
Prior Art50
Evidence Law40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Patent Law
  • Construction Law