Judgment Header
Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 53
Court DecisionSGHC
[2000] SGHC 53
[2000] SGHC 53
General Division of the High Court of Singapore31 Mar 2000Suit 1762/1998
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
This decision has been doubted in a later judgment and cited in 4 other later decisions. Confirm it is still good law before relying on it.
- Doubted by [2023] SGCA 5
Detected automatically from later judgments; not a substitute for a citator check.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
5Later cases and laws citing this decision
“2010] EWCA Civ 819 at [33]; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd [2006] RPC 2 at 46; see also Institut Pasteur and another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and another [2000] SGHC 53 (“Genelabs (HC)”) at [194]). For the avoidance of doubt, the formation of such a notional team does not m”
“ch. First, the offer must not only be made in Singapore but must also relate to the use of the infringing process in Singapore (Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 53 at [225]; Law of Intellectual Property of Singapore at para 33.2.2). There is unfortunately little eviden”
“has been made available in the public domain, even if no one has inspected it: see Ng-Loy ([52] supra) at para 30.1.29, citing Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 53 at [188] and Dien Ghin Electronic (S) Pte Ltd v Khek Tai Ting (trading as Soon Heng Digitax) [2011] 3 SLR”
“o requirement that the information must actually have been accessed or come to the attention of an actual member of the public (Institut Pasteur and another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and another [2000] SGHC 53 (“Genelabs (HC))” at [188] per Tay Yong Kwang JC (as he then was)). The focus is on whether the informati”
“fied even if the prior art was disclosed only to a single member of the public, unless such disclosure was given in confidence: Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 53 (“Institut Pasteur”) at [188]. In addition, the requirement will still be satisfied even if no one has in”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 1762/1998
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2000-03-31
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.