Patents (Amendment) Bill

4.28 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Page: 416

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Patents (Amendment) Bill is closely related to the next one on our Order Paper, the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. Sir, may I therefore suggest, with your permission, that the debate on both Bills take place now? Members are welcome to raise questions or express their views on both Bills during the debate.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Ms Sim Ann: Sir, intellectual property (IP) is a vital component of the global economy. The total number of patent applications filed globally has increased significantly. This increase is particularly marked in Asia. East Asia has now overtaken North America and Western Europe in the number of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international applications filed. The PCT is used for the filing of patent applications in multiple jurisdictions and its increasing use is indicative of the global nature of patent protection today.

Singapore has come some way in our development as an IP hub. Over the years, our IP legislative and enforcement frameworks have been considerably strengthened. Singapore's high international rankings bear testament to our efforts.

Since 2006, Singapore's IP regime has been consistently ranked among the top five in the world by the World Economic Forum, and top 10 by the Institute for Management Development. In addition, according to the Global Innovation Index 2012, which was compiled by the INSEAD Business School in collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organisation, Singapore is Asia's most innovative country.

This has benefited our economy, in our ability to attract foreign investment to Singapore. For example, multi-national companies such as Rolls-Royce and Mead Johnson Nutrition have recently invested hundreds of millions of dollars to set up manufacturing and R&D facilities in Singapore. Our strong IP regime was cited as one of the key reasons for their significant investment in Singapore.

The growth of IP in Asia presents us with a window of opportunity to develop a greater role for Singapore as an Asian IP hub in the international IP landscape.

To that end, my Ministry has convened an IP Steering Committee to formulate an IP Hub Master Plan to guide our next phase of efforts. The Committee will recommend strategies along two key thrusts, namely, (i) to develop a vibrant marketplace to transact and commercialise IP; and (ii) to build world-class capabilities and infrastructure. The review would be completed by early next year.

The present Patents (Amendment) Bill and the Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill are aimed at further strengthening our IP regime, to better support Singapore's development as an IP hub.

The proposed amendments serve three main purposes:

(a) to effect a move from the current "self-assessment" patent system to a new "positive grant" patent system;

(b) to liberalise the patent agent sector; and

Page: 417

(c) to streamline and harmonise the IP Registries processes at IPOS.

Let me explain the changes. First, the Patents (Amendment) Bill amends the Patents Act to replace our current self-assessment patent system with a new positive grant patent system. All applications for patents must undergo a search and examination process. Under our existing self-assessment patent system, patent applications need not, however, fully fulfil Singapore's patentability criteria in order to be granted. This means that patents may be granted without a fully positive examination report.

This was a pragmatic approach recommended by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) when Singapore started its own patent system in 1995. Such a system allows inventors to decide whether they have made adequate adjustments to any objections raised by the examiners, or to disagree with the examiner's assessment of their claims, before proceeding to seek a patent grant if they wish to. We had also decided then not to commit to the substantial investment which would have been required to build domestic patent search and examination capabilities.

Over the past five years, the proportion of Singapore patent grants based on fully positive examination reports has climbed to over 90%. In 2011, 95% of Singapore patent grants were based on a fully positive examination report. We feel it is now timely to make the move to the positive grant patent system.

Under the proposed positive grant patent system, only patent applications which fully meet patentability criteria can be granted. The positive grant patent system will, first, raise the overall quality of patents granted in Singapore; second, align our patent system closer to that of established patent offices like the European Patent Office, Japan Patent Office, the UK Intellectual Property Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and, third, strengthen business and investor confidence in our patent regime.

This is important because there are many valuable inventions generated in Singapore today. For example, a Singapore SME, Aurigin Technology, patented a soldering device used in semiconductor manufacturing. With its patent, the company successfully defended itself against an infringement claim by Hong Kong-based semiconductor manufacturing giant ASM Assembly Automation and even managed to successfully revoke the ASM patent. IPOS runs an IP Management for SMEs programme to guide companies in implementing a viable and cost-effective IP management strategy. To date, more than 250 SMEs have benefited from this programme.

The move to the positive grant patent system will minimise the occurrence of weak patents being granted in future, enhance the standing of Singapore granted patents, and give increased assurance to companies and investors of the quality of Singapore-granted patents. Because investors have increased assurance of the quality of Singapore-granted patent, local SMEs could find it easier to raise funds on the basis of their Singapore-granted patents to take their patented inventions to market.

Clause 6 repeals and re-enacts section 29, and inserts new sections 29A and 29B which provide for, first:

Page: 418

(a) a new supplementary examination process for patent applications that rely on a positive foreign search and examination report, to ensure that such patent applications also comply with Singapore's requirements for patents; and

(b) a new process for the review of non-positive examination reports, search and examination reports, and supplementary examination reports, to provide patent applicants with the opportunity to address outstanding objections raised by the examiner in these reports.

The move to the positive grant patent system was strongly supported by practitioners and the industry during consultation.

The second key change, Sir, is aimed at growing a more international patent agent industry in Singapore, by liberalising our patent agent sector.

Patent protection is becoming increasingly globalised. Asian applicants are leading the way, and Asian companies are filing an increasing number of patent applications in multiple countries apart from their home country. With R&D expenditure growing in many Asian countries, we can expect even more patent applications to originate from this part of the world in the future.

As a result, we foresee that there will be increasing demand in Asia for the services of patent agents and firms with expertise in the patent laws of key markets like the US and Europe. Our aim, therefore, is to attract firms with such international patent expertise to Singapore. This will grow the range of patent capabilities found here, and enable Singapore to better service the growth in demand for such services in Asia. By positioning Singapore as the "go-to" place in Asia for procuring patent services, we aim to grow the overall market for patent services in Singapore. This will benefit all patent professionals in Singapore and create more jobs for Singaporeans.

The liberalisation of our patent agent sector will also expand the range of patent expertise across different technology fields in Singapore, to better meet our industry's needs and support national R&D efforts. Today, Singapore-based inventors from the likes of A*STAR and the universities continue to have to look outside Singapore to procure patent services in certain technology fields.

Under the current patent agent regulatory regime, only registered Singapore patent agents with a practising certificate (PC) or Singapore advocates and solicitors with a PC can undertake patent agency work in Singapore. This is regardless of whether the patent agency work is performed under Singapore Patent law or the Patent law of other countries.

Clauses 21 to 24 amend the Patents Act to:

(a) allow the registration of foreign-qualified patent agents. These foreign-qualified patent agents can be registered at IPOS on the merits of their foreign qualifications and experience, and need not meet local qualification requirements;

(b) allow foreign-qualified patent agents who are registered at IPOS to undertake offshore patent agency work in Singapore; and

Page: 419

(c) allow foreign patent firms to undertake offshore patent agency work in Singapore as long as at least one partner or director is a foreign-qualified patent agent registered at IPOS.

The scope of offshore patent agency work that registered foreign-qualified patent agents can undertake will be restricted to the following areas:

(a) applying for or obtaining patents at any place other than IPOS;

(b) preparing patent specifications for filing patent applications, including PCT international patent applications, outside Singapore; and

(c) providing advice on other countries' patent laws.

Local patent agency work for which knowledge in Singapore Patent law and procedures is required, for instance, the drafting and filing of patent applications with IPOS will continue to be only open to registered Singapore patent agents, and Singapore advocates and solicitors with practising certificates.

There will be conditions for the registration of foreign-qualified patent agents. These will be specified in the amended Patents (Patent Agents) Rules. These conditions will include:

(a) proof of qualification and proficiency to act before a foreign patent office;

(b) Singapore residency;

(c) professional insurance; and

(d) compliance with a code of conduct.

The continued growth of the local patent profession is also important. MinLaw, together with IPOS, is studying how to better support aspiring entrants to the profession. We are also working closely with EDB and IE Singapore to support local firms in growing their capacity to service offshore markets. Some of them already undertake offshore work today.

In response to industry feedback, legislation will also be amended to formally allow individuals who meet local or foreign patent agent registration requirements to use the title "patent attorney", in addition to the title "patent agent". The title "patent attorney" is widely used analogously to "patent agents" in established jurisdictions like Australia and Europe. This move recognises the high professional standing of the patent profession and has been strongly welcomed by our local practitioners.

Sir, we are also amending the Patents Act, Plant Varieties Protection Act, Registered Designs Act and Trade Marks Act to support the streamlining and harmonisation of the processes of the Registry of Patents, Registry of Plant Varieties, Registry of Designs and Registry of Trade Marks at IPOS. These amendments are presented in both the Patents (Amendment) Bill and the IP (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Page: 420

The streamlining of the processes across the different Registries at IPOS will enable greater efficiencies, including cost-savings, which can be translated to users. A new integrated Registries IT system will be launched later this year. The new IT system will make it easier and more convenient for customers to execute transactions and access information related to the different types of IP.

Clause 2(d) of the Patents (Amendment) Bill replaces the definitions of "marketing approval" and "medicinal product", and introduces a new definition for "medicinal health product", in section 2(1) of the Patents Act. This is a consequential change resulting from the Health Sciences Authority's impending transfer of the regulatory regime for pharmaceutical products for human use from the Medicines Act to the Health Products Act.

The remaining clauses make miscellaneous, consequential and ancillary amendments.

The passage of these Bills will underscore to the international community our commitment to strengthen our IP infrastructure and regime, and expand our IP capabilities, so as to develop Singapore as an Asian IP hub. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.43 pm

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

There is little doubt that intellectual property will grow in importance given Singapore's determined push towards a knowledge-based economy. This takes place against the backdrop of the growing footprint of East Asia where the filing of patent applications in multiple jurisdictions is concerned. We, therefore, need to ensure that we are well-placed to take advantage of this shift where intellectual property (IP) in the global economy is concerned.

The proposed amendments will, I believe, contribute towards Singapore's aspiration to be an Asian IP hub. But to do so, we would need more than just a user-friendly and robust legal framework where intellectual property rights are concerned. We need to nurture a viable intellectual property eco-system to ensure that the service providers in Singapore's IP sector can service the growth of the sector – not just in terms of the growing demand for the various IP services but also to widen the suite of IP services and expertise available here in Singapore.

Sir, the switch from a "self-assessment" to a "positive grant" patent system is long overdue. It is now 17 years since we first started our patent system. To continue with the self-assessment patent system only stifles our development as a key node of patent agency work. Pragmatism, which characterised the 1995 patent regime, must now give way to greater ambition, meaningful sophistication in our legal framework, and hard work in developing our capacity and capability in the IP sector. Only then can Singapore become a "go-to" Asian IP hub. As it stands, I feel that we are still very much in the periphery.

Sir, allowing patent applications to be granted regardless of the outcome of their examination reports, which is the case in our current patent law regime, cannot be the game in town. The proposed introduction of the positive grant system, where only patent applications which fully meet patentability criteria will be granted patents, will raise the standing of our patent regime. The current system of patent registration is very much focused on form and procedure.

Page: 421

Sir, if we value IP rights and aspire to be an IP hub, then our registration system must also be informed, characterised and driven by the substance of patentability. In this regard, I would like to request the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to elaborate on the medium- to long-term plans to grow the patent search and examination capabilities of our Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). Today, such work tends to be heavily, if not fully, outsourced to patent offices in other countries.

When can we expect IPOS to be fully equipped to undertake international standards search and examination capabilities beyond the specific technology classes aligned with Singapore's main R&D thrusts? We should not be satisfied to have a narrow range of patent-related capabilities and instead should aspire to be a one-stop, full-service patent registration hub. It may sound a little harsh but my sense is that our IP capabilities have been subjected to somewhat benign neglect in the last two decades.

Sir, the key barrier to our IP aspirations is our human capital capacity. In my view, the liberalisation of the patent agent regime, to allow patent agents to register in Singapore to undertake offshore patent agency work, is but a pragmatic response in the short term. It is a stop-gap measure to ramp up our capability and certainly insufficient for our plans to be an Asian IP hub.

I sincerely hope Singapore-registered patent agents and law firms will rise to the challenge and upgrade their ability to handle both procedural patent registration matters as well as the substantive ones relating to search and examination. This will mean that local patent agents and law firms can reap not just the pecuniary benefits arising from offering a broader suite of patent services but also attract patent owners to use Singapore as a base for furthering the protection and use of their innovations.

As such, I would also like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary about her Ministry's plans to encourage more Singaporeans, especially lawyers with science and technology background, to consider a career as a patent attorney. To be an IP hub, the human capital dimension is crucial. As it stands, where the IP sector is concerned, this lack of an indigenous talent pool for patent services is the missing link in our IP eco-system. We must address this promptly or we will continue to seek the easy but retrogressive step of outsourcing, or opening up the IP sector only for others to reap maximum benefit. Sir, I welcome this Bill, and I look forward to a vibrant IP industry in the years to come.

4.48 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, it is indeed timely for a review of the Patents Bill, to enhance and strengthen our regime. This must also align with our efforts to promote Singapore as a centre for intellectual property transactions in today's global marketplace. Companies and organisations competing at the international platform need IP protection for their innovations and inventions. For inventors who have to spend money and procure the patent, we need to ensure that their investment of time and financial resources is worth it.

Page: 422

I feel that the proposed amendment is in the correct direction, in us, first, changing from a self-assessment to a positive grant patent system; and, two, the liberalisation of the patent agent sector to allow patent agents to register in Singapore. These steps will enable us to align closer with international norms, moving towards patents which are novel and with the potential for industrial applications.

But how can we leverage on the expertise and synergy brought about by the positive grant system to build a more vibrant patent agent and regulator eco-system, where it permits the regulator, that is, the Intellectual Property Office in Singapore (IPOS), the chance to learn from the mingling and interaction with an added pool of expertise and experienced patent agents, instead of restricting them to local patent agents and licensed advocates and solicitors from the courts, as proposed.

I personally feel the experience and mutual understanding gained by both parties, for example, in the defence or prosecution of a patent claim, can create some sparks and give rise to some degree of intellectual "sparring". This can only be good for the IP industry. It will also be useful in building up our local patent profession and experience.

Further to this, why is there a need to restrict foreign patent agents to only offshore patent agency work? Conceivably, by doing so, an investor trying to file in the USA, EU, Japan and Singapore will require two different patent agents, that is, one who is an expert in offshore patent laws and another who can file with IPOS. My concern is that this will add to the cost of procuring the patent. I have had personal experience in this application process and feel that it can be very long drawn, costly and requires much time coordinating with various parties involved.

The desired primary outcome of inventors is exploitation of their patent. To do this, they need to be cognisant of, first, which attorney, patent agent and law firm drafted and filed the patent; secondly, which agency had carried out the examination; and thirdly, what claims have been accepted.

It is also necessary to know if the claims are defensible in court after purchase, and often the reputation and expertise of the grant agency dictates whether it is worth the investment and resources to file in that jurisdiction. Therefore, my suggestions are that: (1) we keep the costs affordable for inventors and investors; (2) permit foreign patent agents to file with IPOS as well; (3) continue to pursue continual alignment with international norms; and (4) create the infrastructure which can ensure budding investors and inventors are allowed to work with the best patent agents they can afford and with a credible regulator, who can start them off on the correct platform. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.52 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier this year, we debated on the Budget. The Budget was the latest in a series of initiatives by the Government to raise productivity and innovation in Singapore. Innovation has to do with the development of new ideas, new products to reap better economic business. New inventions and innovative ideas can be harnessed and put to use in improving the operation of the business or it can be exploited by the innovator by selling the idea or invention or by licensing it to third party.

Page: 423

But in order to do so, we must have an effective, strong and robust patent system. All local SMEs, in particular, have been encouraged to innovate and find new ways to increase performance and productivity, and this has happened. As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sim Ann has noted, in the last 10 years, Singapore's IP landscape has seen much progress. In the last five years, the number of patent applications by local enterprises in Singapore had almost doubled.

The amendments which are being considered in this Bill to the Patent Act are not being made overnight. In August 2009, a public consultation was held to invite feedback for IPOS to consider changes to the regime, and how it can be best calibrated. This has resulted in the present amendments to the Patent Act. These amendments seek to underpin what the Minister for Law had said when the amendments were first outlined in March this year. We aim to build a strong, vibrant IP marketplace with a world-class infrastructure and capability, and, needless to say, I support that initiative.

A strong, robust and credible IP regime is vital to ensuring that Singapore's competitiveness can be maintained. We must try to ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive location for knowledge-intensive corporate entities to manage their IP asset and talent. This can only benefit our economy.

There are several amendments that are being made to the Patent Act and to other IP-related legislation, and I will focus on the change from a "self-assessment" system to a "positive grant" patent system. This is a significant change.

The system which we presently have in place has been used since 1995. It is, as the title suggests, a system which relies on the applicant seeking patent possession to ensure himself that it has met the patentability criteria. Thus, a patent could well be granted regardless of the outcome of the examination report and without necessary compliance with the patentability criteria which are three things: novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Under the old system or the present system, the examination reports of the patent grant are made public and it is then up to the interested party to apply to challenge it. This system was adopted in 1995 when Singapore started its own patent system because of the then limitation in our domestic patent search and examination capability. We also wanted to make it easier at that time to encourage applicants to apply for patents in Singapore.

But it is a system that remains unique in Singapore. The disadvantage, however, was that patent granted in Singapore was therefore less robust and, in some ways, less recognised. With the increase in IP creation, particularly in Asia, this is no longer viable. We must enhance our patent grant system so that any patent granted in Singapore will be well recognised, robust, reliable and have good standing. The amendments that this Bill seeks to introduce will achieve this by doing away with the self-assessment system. In its place, the Bill introduces the positive grant system. Under the system, only applicants who have fully satisfied the patentability criteria will be granted patents. This requires the applicant to obtain a clean examination report, with no unresolved objections. If there are such objections, the applicant can apply under the proposed new section 29B for an examiner to review the examination report.

Page: 424

Sir, there is no doubt that these changes will enhance our patent system. A successful applicant with a Singapore granted patent will hold the patent for which an examination has been both thorough and rigorous. And more importantly, a third party dealing with such applicant or patent will know that it has been granted only after a thorough examination. This can only lend greater certainty and promote increased confidence in the quality of locally obtained patent. In addition, these amendments also bring Singapore's patent system in line with many established jurisdictions, such as the US, the UK, Australia, Japan and also Malaysia. If we do not make these amendments now, we will risk falling behind.

Sir, I see this as a positive step in the enhancement of Singapore as a regional or even global hub for IP services. We have to build our infrastructure and offer a robust patent system and other incentives for global entities to set up shop in Singapore, develop manufacture and export their patents here. Much in the same way as the Government has successfully developed Singapore as a leading arbitration hub over the last few years.

Sir, I therefore support the amendment, but I would like to urge the Ministry to bear in mind that while we strive to ensure or enhance the robustness of the system, that we do not unintentionally hinder our own local SMEs, our own local individual inventors from obtaining patent protection for their own deserving invention. Sir, as the Minister for Law noted in March this year, local companies are creating more IP, can the Ministry elaborate on whether the new positive grant system could result in a delay in the grant of deserving patents in these cases and whether the cost about filing such patents will rise and what assistance can be offered to these SMEs or individual inventors who want to proceed to register their patents. With that, I support the Bill.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bills and for tracking the growth and development of our IP landscape. I shall start by responding to Assoc Prof Fatimah's point, as she has been a personal user of the various IP systems. I agree with her that companies do need IP protection for their innovations and products to compete on the international platform. Indeed, we have observed a trend for companies to file for patent protection in multiple markets outside of their home market.

With the liberalisation of the patent agents sector, we hope to attract more patents firms with international expertise and build a larger pool of patent agents who are capable of providing expert advice on the patent laws and practices across various jurisdictions, and this will benefit Singapore inventors.

As Assoc Prof Fatimah has alluded to, the presence of a wider range of patent agents in Singapore would facilitate greater collaboration and knowledge transfer between practitioners who are qualified to practise across different jurisdictions. I agree that this would help build our local patent profession and add to the vibrancy of our IP landscape.

Allow me to elaborate on why foreign qualified patent agents are restricted only to offshore work. Every national patent system is different and not all foreign qualified patent agents may be familiar with Singapore's patent law and practices. It would thus not be in the interest of Singapore inventors or companies if patent agents who are not qualified in Singapore are allowed to file Singapore patent applications or advise on Singapore patent law.

Page: 425

However, we do know of a number of foreign qualified patent agents who have gone on to seek Singapore qualifications as well, and we hope this trend will continue even under the new regime.

I agree it is important to support SMEs in their IP protection and management needs. IPOS has, over the years, assisted many SMEs across different areas of IP, like patents and trademarks, and we will continue to devote resources to this end.

Asst Prof Eugene Tan spoke about the need to develop the local patent profession and grow a strong pipeline of talent. This, indeed, has been an area of focus for MinLaw and IPOS since the profession was started a decade back. Over the past five years, the Government has been running the Mentorship Funding Scheme to support local patent agent firms in hiring experienced patent agents to guide and mentor local patent trainees. We are currently reviewing the scheme, with the aim of enhancing the training support and building a bigger pipeline of local patent agents. In addition, we are also exploring ways to support the continuing professional development of qualified patent agents. Foreign patent firms that have spoken to MinLaw have expressed intentions of employing and training Singaporeans as patent agents. So, that is some news for Asst Prof Eugene Tan.

We are also working with agencies like EDB and IE Singapore to support local patent firms to grow their offshore markets. Taken together, what this means is that more Singaporeans will enjoy the opportunity to join the patent agent profession and be exposed to the patent laws and practices of different jurisdictions. In addition, IPOS is building up a new team of patent examiners in-house and this new team will also help to enlarge the IP eco-system and provide an additional pathway to the patent agent profession, as we have observed in other countries.

Overall, as we develop a thriving IP industry in Singapore as part of our ambition to be an agent IP hub, we are confident that we will create more high-value jobs for Singaporeans across the different IP professions. These jobs are a good fit for the Singapore workforce as they require people who are technically proficient and have a good command of English. Indeed, I think it is very much the type of high value-add jobs that Mr Gan Thiam Poh was speaking about just now during his Parliamentary question.

Finally, but certainly not least, I think awareness of IP as a good career to go into is also key, and I would be glad to encourage Asst Prof Eugene Tan in raising awareness among his many students of this field as a very rewarding profession possibly to develop into.

Sir, Mr Edwin Tong, as well as Assoc Prof Fatimah, have pointed out that we need to be mindful that the new processes of the "positive grant" patent system do not unintentionally hinder companies and inventors, particularly those representing SMEs from obtaining patent protection for their deserving inventions. I thank them for their observations and that, indeed, were amongst our key considerations.

We think that the impact would be manageable. Under the "positive grant" system, only patent applications with a fully positive search and examination report can be granted. The applicant may opt for the examination review step if the applications have outstanding objections. However, 95% of patents granted already have a fully positive search and examination report and would not be affected by the changes. The new supplementary examination is also only required for patent applications that rely on a foreign search and examination report. Patent applications that rely on a local search and examination report will not require it. On the issue of potential delays and costs, while the examination review may add a few months to the patent application process, this would only affect the 5% of applicants who currently do not have fully positive examination reports. Nonetheless, it is important to note that patent protection starts from the date of filing the application and not the date of grant of patent. There would be additional fees for those who require these additional examination processes, but we will ensure that the fees are kept reasonable.

Page: 426

Sir, I have covered the key points that have been raised by Assoc Prof Fatimah, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Edwin Tong. Again, I would like to thank them for their suggestions which my Ministry will consider and also to thank them for their support of the Bills. These Bills will support our efforts to develop Singapore as an Asian IP hub.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I have two clarification questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. First is that we have seen, in recent months and years, many patent lawsuits in the US and Europe, most notably between tech companies, like Apple and Samsung. Many of these lawsuits deal with very technical issues which even I, as an IT professional, sometimes have difficulty understanding.

My two questions are: first, does the Government expect more patent litigations in Singapore in the coming years, given our tilt towards expanding our patent services? Secondly, while I appreciate that effort is being put into attracting more patent attorneys and building up those capabilities, is our judicial system equipped to be able to deal with these patent litigations and the very technical nature of it?

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his questions. Indeed, as he has pointed out quite rightly, patent lawsuits can be very technically complex, sophisticated and very involved affairs. As to whether or not we expect to see more patent or IP litigation in Singapore, I think this is also, to a large extent, linked to the size of our market. As with our efforts to expand the range of IP-related services – this may, for instance, also include arbitration – we hope that the entire suite of services, including legal support for companies who need this recourse in order to protect their IP, will grow and that our capabilities will also grow in tandem.

As for building up the capabilities in our Judiciary for hearing IP cases, indeed, this is an important focus for my Ministry, and we are working together with the Judiciary to ensure that our judges have the necessary exposure and awareness of the latest developments with regard to IP internationally.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [ Ms Sim Ann ].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.