Ronic Corporation v. Cadware Sdn Bhd 1.

Nature of the violation Soy milk is a lactose-free alternative to cows milk, but requires a lot of time and energy to produce. Therefore, many companies jumped on the opportunity to create appliances that eliminate some of the hassle. Two of these companies soon found themselves in a legal dispute over their devices. In 2012, the Ronic Corporation filed a civil suit against Cadware Sdn Bhd, claiming that its soy milk producing device mirrored their own. Specifically, Ronic claimed that Cadware had violated patent no. MY-134058-A (058 Patent), which describes a circuit used by Ronic to detect the presence of water in the device and to warn the user with an alarm when there is none. The circuit in question functioned by using water to bridge an electrical connection. According to Patent 058, when this connection is bridged by the presence of water a transistor routes the signal to the device, allowing it to operate. However, when this connection is not bridged by water, power is then rerouted to a beeper warning the user and disabling the heating mechanism. This switch is controlled by a transistor Q9, and it is this transistor that is the basis for the claim of the defendant as the defendants device does not contain this transistor. On 22 March 2012, the Judicial Commissioner of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur ruled in favor of the plaintiff on several grounds. Firstly, that the plaintiffs circuit described by Patent 058 was substantially similar to that being used by the defendant. Secondly, that there was only a difference of 1 transistor between the two products. Lastly, the variant was determined by experiment and expert testimony not to have a substantial effect on how the circuit works, therefore not justifying the defendants claim. Thus, it was decided by the judge that the defendant reproduced all of the elements of the circuit described by Patent 058 and therefore violated the patent. This decision was then appealed by Cadware, who still felt that their circuit did not violate Patent 058. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal of Malaysia, Putrajaya, to be reexamined by the appellate court judges. The judge in this case overturned the decision made by the high court, on the grounds that the judge in the High Court failed to review the case with respect to the Doctrine of Purposive Construction. The appellate judge felt that the respondents device operated on the principle of the detection of the absence of water, while that of the appellant operated on the principle of the detection of water levels. Thus, by this principle, Cadware did not violate Patent 058.

Claims of the plaintiff (respondent) The plaintiff (Ronic) claimed that the defendant (Cadware) had produced a product and had the intent to make, import, or sell a product known as CW One Touch Energy Maker. Accordingly, said product was said to clearly contain features identical to or equivalent to Patent 058, filed by Ronic. The defendants infringing act caused the plaintiff to suffer irreparable damage and loss and would continue to suffer damage and loss unless the defendant was restrained. The portion of the patent in question was a circuit used for the detection of water that according to Ronic was identical, except for the First Switching Transistor Q9, to the circuit used by the defendant. The circuit in question in fact was found to offer the same functionality as the plaintiffs. Claims of the defendant (appellant) The Defendant had marketed this product for some time as an invention entitled Device for
Sensing and Alarming the Absence of Water in a Home Machine for Manufacturing Soybean Milk, Watery Bean Curd and Bean Curd as Malaysian Patent No. MY-134058-A (since year 2000). Thusly,

the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs invention is not patentable since it is not novel. Additionally, they believed that the plaintiffs patent should be invalidated because there is no inventive step (implying that the invention is obvious and not patentable). Furthermore, the defendants technology is closer to that of a similar Chinese product, which is more advanced than Patent 058. This would render the patent invalid or irrelevant in the case and allow the defendant to continue to market the product. Issues raised a. Whether the patent was invalid for lack of novelty b. Whether the patent was invalid for obviousness c. Whether the patent is invalid on the ground of insufficiency d. Whether the defendants product infringed the plaintiffs claims in the patent 2. Verdict of the original suit a. The court found that the defendant had indeed produced a product that contained features identical or equivalent to Patent 058 b. The plaintiff had in fact suffered loss from such violation c. The circuit in question, though lacking a transistor necessary to make it identical, had the same functionality as the plaintiffs and therefore the patent was infringed upon d. The patent was in fact novel after a review of the necessary patent literature and other court proceedings e. The inventor had in fact invented something no one else had seen prior, and thus there must have been an inventive step f. The patent was valid g. The patent was infringed upon since all of the main elements were reproduced 3. Verdict of the appeal

a. The court revoked the prior decision, stating that the appellants product was in fact constructed with a different purpose, though built similarly b. Since it was built with a different purpose, no patent infringement is detected 4. Conclusion a. In the original case, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant had in fact violated its patent and that the patent was novel, inventive, and patentable b. In the appeal, the appellate demonstrated that its device had in fact been designed with a different function in mind, and it was decided that based on this the device did not infringe upon the respondents patents.