Patent working in Singapore
14 May 2025
It is common for companies to invest (both time and money) in research and development and eventually obtaining a patent. A patent grants the owner (Applicant or Proprietor) of the invention, the right to prevent others from using the invention without the owner’s consent, during the term of the patent.
Most companies would seek to actively sell, market or license their invention after they have filed a patent application. However, there are also companies that prefer not to sell, market or license their invention immediately, while considering various factors. In some instances, some of these companies do not eventually sell, market or license their invention, despite having a granted patent.
Will a patent be revoked, or are there consequences, if a patent owner does not “work its invention”?
Patent working requirements in some countries, generally require patent owners to use or produce their patented invention within the country that granted the patent. The aim of such requirements is to encourage local industry and prevent patents from being held solely for commercial exploitation without actual use in the country.
In India, for example, it is mandatory to file Working Statements for granted Indian patents, every three years.
In Singapore, there is no mandatory requirement under the Singapore Patents Act that a patentee must work his invention. A patent cannot be revoked on the grounds of non-working of the invention in Singapore. However, although it is not mandatory to work the invention in Singapore, there are provisions relating to compulsory licensing in Singapore.
Provisions regarding compulsory licensing are found in section 55 of the Patents Act. In Singapore, any person interested may apply to the court for a compulsory licence to exploit the invention on the ground that a market for the patented invention is not being supplied, or is not being supplied on reasonable terms, in Singapore (section 55(2)).
There is no requirement as to the time by which the supply of the patented product must start. However, it is provided under section 55(1) that, “Any interested person may apply to the court for the grant of a licence under a patent on the ground that the grant of the licence is necessary to remedy an anti-competitive practice.” [i.e. the failure to supply or to supply on reasonable terms]. Nevertheless, before the application is made, the applicant ought to have first taken all reasonable steps to obtain a licence from the patentee on reasonable commercial terms and conditions and has failed to obtain such licence within a reasonable period of time.
Reasonable remuneration to the patentee under the compulsory licence may either be agreed between the parties, or may be determined by the court.
Section 55 of the Singapore Patents Act is reproduced below:
"55.—(1) Any interested person may apply to the court for the grant of a licence under a patent on the ground that the grant of the licence is necessary to remedy an anti-competitive practice.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may determine that the grant of a licence is necessary to remedy an anti-competitive practice if —
(a) there is a market for the patented invention in Singapore;
(b) that market —
(i) is not being supplied; or
(ii) is not being supplied on reasonable terms; and
(c) the court is of the view that the proprietor of the patent has no valid reason for failing to supply that market with the patented invention, whether directly or through a licensee, on reasonable terms.
(3) Subject to this section, if the court is satisfied that the ground mentioned in subsection (1) is established, the court may make an order for the grant of a licence in accordance with the application upon such terms as the court thinks fit.
(4) A licence granted under this section —
(a) is not exclusive; and
(b) shall not be assigned otherwise than in connection with the goodwill of the business in which the patented invention is used.
(5) Any licence granted under this section may, on the application of any interested party, be terminated by the court where the court is satisfied that the ground upon which the licence was granted has ceased to exist and is unlikely to recur.
(6) Where a licence is granted under this section to any person, the person shall pay such remuneration to the patentee as may be agreed, or as may be determined by a method agreed between the person and the patentee or, in default of agreement, as is determined by the court on the application of the person or the patentee.
(7) The powers of the court on an application under this section shall be exercised with a view to securing that the inventor or other person beneficially entitled to a patent shall receive reasonable remuneration having regard to the economic value of the licence.
(8) No order shall be made in pursuance of any application under this section which would be at variance with any treaty or international convention relating to patents to which Singapore is a party."
Hence, while it is not mandatory to work an invention in Singapore, there is an avenue for interested parties to apply to the court for a compulsory licence to exploit the invention on the ground that a market for the patented invention is not being supplied, or is not being supplied on reasonable terms.