Can Your Utility Innovation Actually Stop a Copycat?
You might assume that once you register your innovation, the law automatically stops anyone from copying it. And if you're on the other side, you might assume that if you make some changes to someone else's patent, you're safe from an infringement action.
Both assumptions are wrong more often than you'd expect.
In Zoinla (M) Sdn Bhd v Icares Technology Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 CLJ 829, the Malaysian High Court found that a smart community app infringed a registered utility innovation. The company behind the app believed it had built something different and lost anyway.
Here is what happened, and what it means for your business on either side of that line.
Key takeaways
A utility innovation or patent protects what its claims say, not what its drawings or examples show.
A competitor who copies your system with different equipment can still infringe if your claim describes what the invention does.
You can infringe without copying anyone. What matters is whether your product falls within someone else's claims.
In a dispute, the credibility of your technical expert can decide how the court reads the claim.
Case at a glance
Court: High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (Azlan Sulaiman JC)
Decided: 24 October 2024
Citation: [2025] 1 CLJ 829
Right in dispute: Malaysian Utility Innovation No. MY-188397-A, a mobile-based security management system
Outcome: The ICares app was found to infringe. The court granted an injunction, damages or an account of profits, and RM200,000 in costs.
Can a competitor copy your product just by changing a few parts?
In that case, Zoinla registered a utility innovation for a security management system. Residents press a virtual panic button on a phone app. The signal goes to a server, and the server sounds an alarm at the security point. Through the same app, residents enter visitor details, which appear on a display unit so guards can check visitors at the gate.
In November 2018, Icares Technology launched a smart community mobile application, known as ICares. It was rolled out to property developers, joint management bodies and residents' associations across Malaysia. It had a panic button and a visitor registration feature.
Icares's defence was straightforward. Zoinla's own document showed a physical alarm installed at the guardhouse and a separate display monitor. The drawings showed them, and so did the description. ICares had neither. It sounded the alarm on the guard's mobile phone and showed visitor details on that phone's screen.
Different equipment, different setup, so surely a different product.
At this point, most business owners would expect Icares to win.
It didn't.
The court held that what a registration protects is set by its claims. The drawings, the abstract and the examples don't define it. Zoinla's claim didn't say "a siren at the guardhouse." It said "an alarm system." It didn't say "a computer monitor." It said "a display unit."
Read in context, a phone that alerts the guard is an alarm system, and a phone screen is a display unit. Icares had changed the equipment, but the system it was using was the one Zoinla had claimed.
You've registered a utility innovation. Are you actually protected?
Only if your claim covers the part of your product that competitors will want to copy.
But this raises another question. If the claim is everything, is your claim any good?
Most founders ask, "Have I registered my innovation?"
The better question is: "Does my claim describe the part a competitor will copy, or only the version I first built?"
What is a utility innovation?
A utility innovation is often called a "mini-patent." It protects a new product or process, or a new improvement to an existing one, that can be used in industry. It doesn't require an inventive step, which makes it easier to obtain than a full patent, but it is governed by the same Patents Act 1983 and can be enforced in the same way.
Consider an example. Suppose you've developed a smart parcel locker for condominiums. Residents get a one-time code on their phone, the locker opens, and management receives a delivery log. What would you protect?
Scenario A: The value is in the hardware.
Your locker has a new door mechanism that resists tampering. Competitors can't easily copy it, and building managers buy the product for it. Your claim should describe that mechanism closely. The app is secondary.
Scenario B: The value is in the workflow.
The locker itself is ordinary steel. What building managers pay for is the system: a code is generated per delivery, the courier triggers the server, the resident is notified, and management gets an audit trail. A competitor could copy all of this with a cheaper locker, or with a staffed counter and a tablet.
In Scenario B, a claim that says "a steel locker with a keypad" protects very little. What you need is a claim built around the steps of your workflow: generating a one-time code for each delivery, sending it to the resident's phone, unlocking on that code, and logging each collection for management.
The equipment still appears in the claim, but in general terms, such as "a storage unit," "a server" and "a user device." That way, the claim catches a competitor who copies your workflow with a cheaper locker or a staffed counter and a tablet.
That was Zoinla's position. Its claim described the steps (an alert signal to the server, the server sounding the alarm, visitor details sent to a display) and named the equipment in general terms. Whether your registration protects you depends on which part is commercially valuable, and that has to be decided from the outset, when the claim is drafted.
Could you be sued for a product you built yourself without copying?
Yes. Patent infringement depends on what someone else's claims cover, not on whether you copied them.
Now look at the case from Icares's side.
Icares developed and ran its own app. It controlled its own server, marketed the app on its website and social media, and supplied it to customers around the country. None of that was a defence.
Infringement doesn't depend on whether you copied anyone. It depends on whether your product falls within someone else's claims.
If you're launching a product in a space where others have been filing, such as proptech, security, logistics or fintech, the question isn't whether your product looks like theirs. The question is whether their claim wording reads onto your product. A freedom-to-operate check before launch answers that while you can still adjust your design.
What happens if you're sued for patent infringement, and what could it cost you?
In Zoinla, the cost was the product itself, plus damages and legal costs.
The court's orders against Icares were comprehensive:
a permanent injunction stopping it from offering any app that uses the claimed features
removal of all related marketing from its website and social media
disclosure of project details, contracts, customer records and financial records
damages, or at Zoinla's option, the profits Icares made from the app
RM200,000 in legal costs
That is the commercial cost.
But one part of the judgment may receive very little attention, and it is the most important part of the story if you ever have to defend a claim: the expert witness.
What is a Person Ordinarily Skilled in the Art?
Courts often refer to this person as a POSITA. It means a person with practical knowledge and experience in the field the invention belongs to, such as an engineer for a mechanical device or a software developer for an app.
Your claims are not read the way you read them, or even the way your lawyer reads them. They are read the way a POSITA would understand them, and in practice that understanding reaches the court through an expert witness.
This is why the choice of expert can decide a case. In Zoinla, the question was whether "alarm system" and "display unit" could cover a guard's mobile phone. That turned on how someone skilled in mobile and network systems would read those words. Zoinla's expert, an electrical engineer, explained that reading and showed it working by testing the app on two phones.
Icares's expert was a patent agent with a biosciences background, and the court held he was not the right kind of expert to answer the question. Practically speaking, the side whose expert speaks credibly for the POSITA is usually the side whose reading of the claim the court adopts.
Is registration worth it, or should you simply move fast?
Speed helps you win customers, but it doesn't stop a competitor who holds an earlier registration.
Many founders believe speed is their only protection: launch first and stay ahead. Zoinla shows the limits of that approach. Zoinla filed in August 2016, more than two years before ICares launched, and sued in 2023. Icares moved fast and built a national customer base, and Zoinla still stopped it years later because Zoinla had filed first and claimed the right thing.
Before you decide, ask yourself:
What exactly is the commercially valuable part of your product: the hardware, the process or the workflow?
What gives your customers the result they pay for, and could someone deliver it with different equipment?
What is your competitor most likely to change if they copy you, and would your claim still cover that change?
Does your current claim describe functions, or only the specific version shown in your drawings?
If you're about to launch, have you read the claims of existing registrations in your space?
Frequently asked questions
What is a utility innovation in Malaysia?
A utility innovation is a "mini-patent" under the Patents Act 1983. It protects new products, processes or improvements that can be used in industry, without the inventive step that a full patent requires.
What did the court decide in Zoinla v Icares?
The High Court in Kuala Lumpur held on 24 October 2024 that the ICares app infringed Zoinla's utility innovation, even though ICares used mobile phones instead of a physical alarm and monitor. The court granted an injunction, damages or an account of profits, and RM200,000 in costs.
Does changing the equipment avoid infringement?
Not necessarily. If the claim describes what the invention does in general terms, a product that does the same thing with different equipment can still infringe.
Can I infringe a patent without copying it?
Yes. Infringement depends on whether your product falls within the registered claims, not on whether you knew about or copied the invention.
Written by,
Registered Trademark, Patent and Design Agent
LL.B (HONS), CLP
Advocate & Solicitor
Disclaimer
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It briefly summarises the High Court decision in Zoinla (M) Sdn Bhd v Icares Technology Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 CLJ 829 as reported and may not reflect its full context, and the position may change if the decision is appealed. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified IP professional.
Filing a patent or utility innovation? Make sure your claims protect what matters.
IP Gennesis, a Malaysian IP advisory firm, helps businesses register utility innovations and patents with claims drafted around what is commercially valuable. Contact us today at www.ipgennesis.com.
Comments