Judgment Header
Astrazeneca AB v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2012] SGHC 7
Court DecisionSGHC
[2012] SGHC 7
[2012] SGHC 7
General Division of the High Court of Singapore13 Jan 2012Suit No. 501 of 2011/V-Summons No. 5106 of 2011/Q
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“issue. This is because each claim in a patent stands on its own, and even within a single patent, each individual claim has to be assessed separately (see Astrazeneca AB v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2012] SGHC 7 at [8] (“Ranbaxy”)). As such, given that the Plaintiff has not relied on the Unasserted Claims, it contends”
“y the plaintiff to have been infringed, and the defendant does not have carte blanche to put in issue the validity of the entire patent in its defence: see Astrazeneca AB v Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2012] SGHC 7 at [8]-[9]. The AR thus ordered the Defendants to amend paras 4 and 14, which were contained within the “D”
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 No. 501 of 2011/V-Summons No. 5106 of 2011/Q
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-01-13
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.