Veronica Sainik @ Ronald v Meluha Life Sciences Sdn Bhd & Ors

Appellant(s): Veronica Sainik @ Ronald

Respondent(s):

• Meluha Life Sciences Sdn Bhd
• Vijayendran A/L Govindasamy
• Premasangery A/P Kathivaloo

• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril

• The appellant, a Master's student, conducted research for her dissertation as part of a collaboration project between her university and the first respondent, a biotechnology company.
• The respondents subsequently obtained a patent titled "Isolation, Expansion and Characterization of Precursor/Stem Cells from Dental Tissues", which the appellant alleged reproduced substantial content and data from her dissertation without her knowledge or consent.
• Although the appellant had assigned the copyright in her dissertation to the university, she initiated a suit claiming infringement of her moral rights and seeking invalidation of the patent.
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's claims, finding no evidence of moral rights infringement and upholding the patent's validity, leading to this appeal.

• Whether the High Court erred in finding no infringement of the appellant's moral right of integrity under Section 25(2)(b) of the Copyright Act 1987, given the alleged modifications to her dissertation in the patent.
• Whether the High Court erred in finding no infringement of the appellant's moral right of paternity under Section 25(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 1987, due to the lack of attribution in the patent.
• Whether the patent was invalid for failing to meet the novelty requirement under Section 14 of the Patents Act 1983, considering the appellant's published dissertation as prior art.

• The Court of Appeal found that the respondents had infringed the appellant's moral rights of integrity by substantially modifying her dissertation without consent, thereby adversely affecting her honour and reputation as a researcher.
• The Court further held that the respondents infringed the appellant's moral right of paternity by utilising portions of her dissertation in the patent without identifying her as the author or inventor.
• The Court declared the patent invalid *ab initio* under Section 56 of the Patents Act 1983, as the appellant's dissertation, published in 2013, constituted prior art that fully anticipated the patent's claims, thus failing the novelty requirement.
• The Court allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and awarding the appellant RM100,000 for moral rights infringement and RM100,000 in aggravated damages, plus costs.