Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd v Apple South Asia Pte. Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] SGHCR 22
• Parties: Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd,Apple South Asia Pte. Ltd.

Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd v Apple South Asia Pte. Ltd.

[2026] SGHCR 22

Originating Claim No 773 of 2024 (Summons No 3464 of 2025)

Salutica Allied Solutions Sdn Bhd

Apple South Asia Pte. Ltd.

General Division of the High Court

AR Kenneth Choo

Intellectual Property - Patents and inventions - Infringement - Formation of confidentiality club - Whether access to documents be restricted to solicitors and experts

Intellectual Property - Patents and inventions - Infringement - Formation of confidentiality club - Whether a restrictive covenant be imposed on solicitors and experts

Lauw Yu An, Nicholas Lynwood, Ching Pu Fang and Kwek Shu En, Annabel (Premier Law LLC) for the claimant

Tony Yeo Soo Mong, Javier Yeo and Loo Fang Hui (Drew & Napier LLC) for the defendant.

30 June 2026

AR Kenneth Choo:

Introduction

1. The defendant, in seeking protection for its secret process alleged to infringe the claimant’s patent, took out this application (“the Application”) for a confidentiality club to be formed for the disclosure of confidential documents and confidential information by the defendant on terms to be agreed. The claimant did not, in principle, oppose the formation of a confidentiality club but ultimately objected to two specific terms proposed by the defendant: (a) the defendant contended inter alia that disclosure of the more highly confidential documents should be limited to solicitors and experts, but resisted disclosure to the claimant’s own officers or employees; and (b) the defendant also pushed for a restrictive covenant that precluded the claimant’s solicitors and experts from being involved in certain patent applications for a period of time. I granted the Application, ruling in favour of the defendant for the first issue and in favour of the claimant for the second.

2. An appeal has since been filed against my decision in part, and I now provide my full written grounds.

Facts

The parties and their pleaded cases

3. The claimant (“Salutica”) is a company incorporated in Malaysia in 1990. Salutica pleaded that it is in the business of, inter alia, developing and manufacturing various Bluetooth consumer electronics and technologies including, but not limited to, Bluetooth trackers and wireless tire pressure monitoring systems. It was undisputed that Mr Joshua Lim, Salutica’s Chief Executive Officer, and Mr Joel Lim, Salutica’s alternate director, are substantial shareholders of Salutica and/or its parent company, Salutica Berhad.

4. The defendant (“Apple”) is a company incorporated in Singapore in 1989. Apple pleaded that it is engaged in the sale of pc hardware, accessories, software, consumer electronics and telecom products. Apple’s parent company is Apple Inc., which is an American multinational company that designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services. Most notable for its iPhone, Mac, iPad and wearable devices, Apple Inc. also operates major current platforms such as the App Store, Apple Music and Apple TV.

5. Salutica is the registered proprietor of Singapore Patent No. 11201504174W titled “A System And Method For Transmitting, Storing Receiving And/Or Retrieving Identification Information Or Data And/Or Pairing Information Or Data Between Accessories Or Associated Products And Smart Electronic Devices Into And/Or From Any Distinct Server Or Storage Media” (“the Patent”). The Patent provides that the alleged invention allows a user to transmit and/or store all pairing information between secondary smart electronic devices and existing primary devices, into a distinct server or storage media, and enables such pairing information to be retrieved and/or received into such substitute or other primary devices which will then circumvent the need of reinitiating the pairing process.

6. On 30 September 2024, Salutica commenced this suit (“the Suit”) against Apple, claiming that Apple had infringed the Patent. Apple denies Salutica’s allegations of infringement and has filed a counterclaim for, inter alia, revocation of the Patent.

Background to the Application

7. The parties conducted the first round of voluntary production and exchange of documents on 18 March 2025.

8. On 30 May 2025, Salutica’s solicitors, Premier Law LLC (“PL”), wrote to Apple’s solicitors, Drew & Napier LLC (“Drew”), and requested for 34 categories of documents.

9. By way of a letter dated 21 July 2025 from Drew to PL, Apple rejected all of Salutica’s requests. According to Apple, Salutica had failed to explain how the requested documents were material to the issues in the Suit, and the scope of the requested documents were in any case manifestly disproportionate. Hence, Apple held the view that Salutica was not entitled to any of the documents requested. Apple nevertheless stated that, in the interests of moving the matter forward, it had obtained documents relating to the alleged infringing system and alleged methods of infringement as set out in Salutica’s Particulars of Infringement dated 30 September 2024 (“Confidential Documents”). Apple further indicated that it would be prepared to disclose such documents “strictly on condition that such disclosure is subject to an appropriate confidentiality order and with the appropriate confidentiality undertakings”.

10. Thereafter, the parties engaged in negotiations on the terms governing the formation of a confidentiality club and how the Confidential Documents should be handled. The parties however could not agree on several key terms. As a result, Apple filed the Application on 26 November 2025.

11. During the first hearing of the Application on 9 January 2026, PL and Drew submitted on the following contested terms:

• (a) The form of the confidentiality club, i.e. whether by an order of court or by way of deed;

• (b) The members of the confidentiality club;

• (c) The prosecution bar;

• (d) The right to dispute the confidential nature of the documents;

• (e) The process for redactions;

• (f) The indemnity clause and rights to relief; and

• (g) The jurisdiction clause in the personal undertakings.

12. By the end of the first hearing, it became apparent that many of the contested terms could be resolved if parties were given some time for negotiations. I therefore afforded the parties time to confer and directed that they write in by 26 January 2026 on whether the Application could be resolved and if not, to state the issues that remained in contention.

13. The parties requested for an extension of time on 26 January 2026 and, subsequently, for a further extension on 2 February 2026. On 13 February 2026, Drew updated that parties have managed to agree on most terms save for the issues on members of the confidentiality club, the proposed prosecution bar and costs. In the circumstances, the parties had to proceed with the Application.

14. At the parties’ request, I directed them to file their brief further submissions on their latest positions in respect of the remaining issues by 4 March 2026 and fixed a second hearing on 30 March 2026. At the conclusion of this second hearing, I rendered my decision and provided brief reasons.

Parties’ submissions

15. Apple asserted that the Confidential Documents are technical documents that relate to its proprietary technology. This technology relates to a process that Apple developed that allows Apple users to easily connect their Apple devices to their Apple accessories as long as they are signed into the same Apple ID (“the Feature”). According to Apple, the Confidential Documents include:

• (a) presentation slides which demonstrate how Apple products and accessories connect to each other, and the information that is transmitted between Apple products and accessories; and

• (b) documents (used by Apple for internal collaboration and knowledge management) which elaborate on how Apple products and accessories connect to each other.

16. Apple further stated that the Confidential Documents reveal, to a certain extent, confidential information about the structure, function and operation of Apple’s technologies and, in particular, how Apple implements the Feature that Salutica alleges infringed the Patent. Apple emphasised that the Confidential Documents are not accessible to the public or to its employees generally. These documents are apparently only accessible by its authorised employees.

17. Apple also claimed that there are security concerns if the Confidential Documents are disclosed to third parties. Exposing Apple’s technology makes it vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. This would not only cause Apple to suffer severe consequences but will also impact Apple’s customers who use and depend on the security of Apple devices. According to Apple, there are over two billion active Apple devices worldwide.

18. Exposing Apple’s technology to third parties could also allow the latter to exploit and profit from Apple’s extensive investment in its own research and development. In particular, Apple highlighted that Salutica is a manufacturer of consumer electronics and lifestyle electronic products; it therefore has the potential, capability, and the commercial impetus to exploit Apple’s proprietary technology to Apple’s detriment.

19. Apple argued that it was made a defendant in the Suit, ie, this was not a claim that Apple commenced. Apple agreed to produce the Confidential Documents to discharge its disclosure obligations. Apple contended that but for the Suit, Salutica would not have had access to such information relating to Apple’s proprietary technology.

20. As regards the members of the confidentiality club, Apple proposed the following two-tier confidentiality regime:

• (a) The first tier would have access to Restricted Confidential Documents (“RCD”), which are defined by Apple as documents that reveal the process used to pair Apple devices signed into the...