Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 MAY 2018

Rectification Of The Register – A Singapore Perspective

For the above reasons, the Court held that BMS was not entitled to seek the corrections under Rule 58.

SingaporeIntellectual Property

Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co [2017] SGHC 322

I. Introduction

In the recent case of Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co [2017] SGHC 322, the Singapore High Court addressed, for the first time, key procedural issues associated with corrections to patent forms and priority data, as well as corrections to the Singapore Patents Register (the "Register").

II. Background

The respondent, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma Co ("BMS"), is the proprietor of 5 patents ("BMS' patents") in respect of the active pharmaceutical ingredient Efavirenz, namely, Singapore Patent Nos. SG 77853, SG 134977, SG 111980, and SG 111981 (the "SG 77853 Patent Family", comprising the parent application SG 77853 and the divisional applications SG 134977, SG 111980, and SG 111981), and Singapore Patent No. SG 76157.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from