Kingtime International Ltd v Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Kingtime International Ltd

Respondent(s): Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Lee Swee Seng
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The appellant, proprietor of two patents (Kingtime Patents), previously obtained a final judgment (Petrofac Judgment) against Petrofac E&C Sdn Bhd for patent infringement concerning the MOPU Sepat, with the patents being declared valid.
• Subsequently, the appellant initiated an infringement suit against the respondent for its use and stocking of the same MOPU Sepat, while the respondent counterclaimed to invalidate the Kingtime Patents.
• The High Court in the present suit (PCSB Suit) dismissed the appellant's infringement claim and allowed the respondent's invalidation claim, finding the patents invalid and no infringement, a decision contrary to the earlier Petrofac Judgment.

• Whether the respondent was a privy of Petrofac, thereby making the Petrofac Judgment binding on the respondent on the grounds of *res judicata* or estoppel.
• If *res judicata* or estoppel applied, whether the appellant was estopped from filing the infringement suit or the respondent from filing the invalidation suit.
• Whether the High Court erred in invalidating the Kingtime Patents solely based on the invalidity of certain claims without a separate evidential assessment of all dependent claims, as required by Federal Court precedent.

• The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was a privy of Petrofac due to its extensive involvement and common interest in the MOPU Sepat, thus the Petrofac Judgment was binding on the respondent via *res judicata* and estoppel.
• The Court found that the respondent was estopped from challenging the validity of the Kingtime Patents, but the appellant was not estopped from pursuing its infringement claim against the respondent, as it concerned distinct infringing acts.
• The Court further ruled that the High Court was plainly wrong to invalidate the Kingtime Patents without undertaking the required evidential process of examining each dependent claim separately, contrary to the Federal Court's decision in *Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp & Anor v Hovid Bhd*.