Zyfas Medical Co (Sued as a firm) v Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and another

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. sued Zyfas Medical Co for patent infringement in HC/S 817/2019 after Zyfas registered a product with the Health Sciences Authority. Judgment was delivered on 29 December 2023 dismissing the claims and awarding costs to Zyfas; the court essentially found one patent invalid and the other not infringed. An interim injunction ordered on 2 April 2020 had restrained Zyfas from dealing in the product until it was discharged by consent at the close of trial on 27 October 2021. An inquiry into the damages, if any, payable to Zyfas for loss it alleged the injunction caused was scheduled for trial in late April 2026.

Zyfas filed Bill of Costs No 11 of 2026 on 29 January 2026, seeking S$1,027,867.46. The respondents then filed Summons No 503 of 2026, asking that the bill be heard only after the damages inquiry and any appeals ended. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application with brief reasons and, after an appeal was filed, gave full grounds.

1. Whether the assessment of trial costs should be deferred until the damages inquiry concerning the interim injunction was completed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal's guidance in Lin Jian Wei and Freddie Koh applied to these facts.
3. What costs should be ordered for the deferral application.

The respondents relied on Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] 3 SLR 1052 and on Freddie Koh, arguing that the registrar must gauge costs against the stake in the controversy and that damages might be nominal or below the District Court limit, affecting the scale of costs. Zyfas said the inquiry was a separate consequence of the respondents' unsuccessful interim relief and did not affect its status as the successful party.

The Assistant Registrar held that the Court of Appeal's guidance was given where a trial decided only liability and damages were still to be assessed, so the value at stake in the liability phase was not yet known. That was not this case. The patent claims had been fully resolved in Zyfas's favour and there were no damages to assess from them. The inquiry concerned a separate interlocutory process, the injunction later discharged, so any sum awarded would not reflect what was at stake at the trial, namely the validity and infringement of the patents. Proportionality could be judged by comparing the work done with that stake. The general principle stated was that costs of concluded proceedings whose value does not depend on a pending damages assessment may be assessed without waiting for it.

On costs, the Appendix G ranges for stays in favour of arbitration, forum non conveniens or pending appeal did not fit. The range for contested general applications on a normal list was used, at the lower end, because the application turned on two authorities, the facts were not disputed and submissions were concise.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application in Summons No 503 of 2026, so the assessment of Zyfas's bill of costs could proceed without waiting for the damages inquiry. The respondents were ordered to pay Zyfas the costs of the application fixed at S$4,200, all in.