Hong Kong: Case Update - SNE Engineering Co Ltd v Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd

Last Updated: 31 December 2015
Article by Xiaoyan Zhang
Most Read Contributor in Hong Kong, September 2019

Keywords: intellectual property, patent, SNE Engineering Co Ltd v Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd.,

By Xiaoyan Zhang, Counsel (New York, USA), Mayer Brown JSM, Hong Kong
Maggie Lee, Legal Assistant, Mayer Brown JSM, Hong Kong

On 6 August 2015, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal affirmed a patent decision issued by the Court of First Instance in SNE Engineering Co Ltd v Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd1. This case is significant in two material aspects. First, it confirmed the principles applicable to construction of short-term patents and determination of sufficiency and novelty. Second, it clarifies how a short-term patentee can discharge his burden of establishing patent's validity under section 129 of the Patents Ordinance (Cap. 514) (the "Ordinance").

Background – Short -Term Patent

In Hong Kong, there are two types of patents: standard patents and short-term patents, which enjoy a term of protection of 20 years and eight years, respectively. The application for short-term patents is straightforward. Only a request, a specification, an abstract and a search report in relation to the invention are required under section 113 of the Ordinance. Unlike a standard patent, a short-term patent application will not be subject to substantive examination although a short-term patent owner has to establish the validity of his patent before he can enforce his patent rights in court proceedings under section 129 of the Ordinance2.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiff SNE Engineering Co Ltd ("SNE") was engaged by the 1st Defendant, Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd ("Hsin Chong"), to remove piles at a site for the high speed railway between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Hsin Chong awarded the contracts to SNE relying on the understanding that the method for removal of piles ("Method") had not been used in Hong Kong. SNE then engaged the 2nd Defendant, Chim Kee Machinery Co Ltd ("Chim Kee"), to supply machinery and operators for the pile removal works. The works commenced in September 2010.

On 4 August 2011, SNE applied for a short-term patent ("Patent") for the Method in Hong Kong. The claims in the Patent were drafted in Chinese and the application was supported by a search report prepared by the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China ("Search Report"). SNE obtained registration of the Patent on 23 December 2011.

As the pile removal works did not progress at the rate anticipated by the parties, Hsin Chong took over the site in July 2012 and eventually terminated the contracts with SNE. SNE commenced proceedings against Hsin Chong and Chim Kee, contending that Hsin Chong infringed the Patent by using the Method to continue with the works at the site without SNE's permission, and that Chim Kee participated in such infringement by supplying the machinery and operators.

The First Instance Decision

On 26 March 2014, the Court of First Instance rejected SNE's claims and held that the Patent was invalid on two grounds:

  1. The specification of the Patent did not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art; and
  2. Alternatively, the Method lacked novelty because it had been made available to the public.

In determining whether the Patent should be invalidated on the ground of insufficiency, the Court of First Instance adopted the purposive approach illustrated in Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith [1982] RPC 18311 by examining "whether persons with practical knowledge and experience of the kind of work in which the invention was intended to be used, would understand that strict compliance with a particular descriptive word or phrase in a claim was intended by the patentee to be an essential requirement of the invention so that any variant would fall outside the monopoly claimed".3 Having considered the legal principles and the evidence of the expert witnesses, the Court of First Instance identified a combination of six deficiencies which rendered the patent specification insufficiently clear. For example, the diagrams in the Patent did not correspond with the description of the method in the text and there were technical flaws in the description of the process.

The Court of First Instance then considered how a patentee could discharge the burden of proving the validity of a short-term patent under section 129 of the Ordinance, and held that if the alleged infringer had not put forward evidence to challenge the validity of a short-term patent, then the patent was prima facie valid. However, once the alleged infringer had adduced sufficient evidence to challenge the validity of the patent, the burden of proof fell back on the patentee.

The Defendants' challenge against the novelty of the patent based on a product brochure published in Japan failed because the judge found that the method featured in the brochure was not the same as the Method, and even if the methods had been the same, the Method would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

The Court of First Instance, however, agreed with Defendants that the Method lacked novelty by reason of disclosure to the public. For example, the Method had entered into the public domain when it was communicated to Defendants by SNE under no duty of confidentiality. The Method has also been disclosed to the public at the site through execution of the works by Chim Kee's operators as a person skilled in the art could derive the Method by reference to what was observable at the site.

Issues at Appeal

SNE appealed, inter alia, the following broad issues:

  1. Whether the Patent had been construed properly and whether the Patent was invalid on the ground of insufficient disclosure;
  2. Whether the Court of First Instance had interpreted section 129 of the Ordinance correctly; and
  3. Whether the Patent was invalid on the ground of lack of novelty due to disclosure before the date of application.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal considered the Plaintiff 's claim on each of the broad issues and dismissed the appeal.

Construction of Patent and Insufficiency

The Court of Appeal held that there was no error of law on the construction of the Patent. The Court of Appeal furthermore found no basis to interfere with the Court of First Instance's ruling of disclosure insufficiency which was a question of fact and degree and an appellate court should be reluctant to interfere with the assessment of evidence by the lower court.

Interpretation of Section 129 of the Ordinance

The Court of Appeal analysed the burden of proof imposed by section129 of the Ordinance in detail, explaining that section 129(a) imposes a legal burden on the patentee to establish the validity of the patent in enforcement proceedings and section 129 (b) imposes an evidential burden to provide prima facie evidence of the validity of the patent. It held that the mere fact that the patent had been granted or the mere existence of a search report filed at the time of application would not be sufficient to discharge the evidential burden under section 129(b). Rather, the key question here was "whether the content of the search report is sufficient to support the prima facie validity of the patent".4 If the patentee was able to provide prima facie evidence of validity, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the defendant, he would meet the burden of proof required by section 129(b).

The lower court found the Search Report insufficient to support the prima facie validity of the patent as the description of the Method in the Search Report was inconsistent with the description in the specification of the Patent. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the lower court did not adjudicate the invalidity simply because SNE had failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Lack of Novelty

The Court of Appeal endorsed the Court of First Instance's holding that the Method had been made available to the public through disclosures made by Chim Kee's operators at the site prior to the application of the Patent. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court's analysis on the question of confidentiality concerning the disclosures made by SNE to Defendants. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the representation by SNE that the method was widely used in Japan was not sufficiently specific to suggest to a reasonable recipient that the Method was already in the public domain in Japan. There was also evidence that the parties viewed their relationship as one of confidence. In light of the conclusions on the other points, the Court of Appeal had left this issue open.


In order to discharge the burden of proving a short-term patent's validity under section 129 of the Ordinance in legal proceedings, a patentee will need to show that the content of the search report is sufficient to support the prima facie validity of the patent. Extra care should be given to ensure that the contents of the search report match the description of the specification.

Additionally, to avoid challenges based on lack of novelty, patentees should ensure that adequate confidentiality measures are in place during any commercial dealings prior to the filing of a patent application.


1 [2015] 4 HKLRD 517

2 Section 129 of the Ordinance provides that "In any proceedings before a court for the enforcement of rights conferred under this Ordinance in relation to a short-term patent- (a) it is for the proprietor of the patent to establish the validity of the patent, and the fact that the patent has been granted under this Part shall be of no account in that regard; (b) evidence by the proprietor which is sufficient to establish prima facie the validity of the patent shall in the absence of evidence to the contrary be sufficient proof of such validity."

3 Paragraph [109] of the First Instance judgement.

4 Paragraph [104] of the Court of Appeal judgement.

Originally published 18 December 2015

Learn more about our Cybersecurity & Data Privacy, Intellectual Property and Technology, Media & Telecommunications practices.

Visit us at www.mayerbrownjsm.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein. Please also read the JSM legal publications Disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions