Integrating enforcement-ready IP strategies into early-stage R&D

Daniel Lee on June 29, 2026

A common pitfall for innovative companies is treating Intellectual Property (IP) as an administrative afterthought or even a form filing exercise that happens only when a product is designed and ready for market. It’s a siloed approach that often results in patents that are not properly scoped, unprotected trade secrets, and missed opportunities. More critically, it can lead to IP that are impossible to enforce against competitors.

To build real enterprise value, companies must weave IP strategy directly into the fabric of their Research and Development (R&D) processes. Outline here are best practices for capturing early-stage inventions, details on how to build an integrated R&D-IP lifecycle, and useful tips on how early-stage habits lay the foundation for effective IP enforcement in the future.

The integrated R&D-IP lifecycle

To catch high-value inventions before they are lost to public disclosure or competitor pre-emption, IP checkpoints must be incorporated into the R&D process. A typical flowchart can be shown, along with the corresponding IP checkpoints, as follows:

Ideation and concept (IP landscaping)

  • The Process: Ideally, even before writing a single line of code or synthesizing any molecules or compounds, the various research teams should work with IP counsel, whether in-house or external, to conduct a preliminary patent landscape search. This gives a better understanding of what has been done and any potential gaps in the field of technology.
  • The R&D benefit: Helps prevent “reinventing the wheel” and directs R&D budgets toward white spaces — areas with high market potential and low competitor patent density.

Proof of concept and feasibility (Invention disclosure)

  • The process: As soon as a technical solution works in a lab or simulation, engineers should prepare and submit an Invention Disclosure Form (IDF) to trigger the process of evaluating the invention for potential IP protection.
  • The R&D benefit: It establishes an early, verifiable timestamp of conception, crucial for resolving priority disputes or establishing inventorship. This can result in a patent being drafted, or the securing of a trade secret, depending on factors such as importance of the invention, detectability, licensing potential, and so on.

Product development (Filing triage)

  • The process: IP counsel reviews IDFs to decide the protection mechanism: patenting, maintaining as a trade secret, or defensive publication.
  • The R&D benefit: Ensures that core technical differentiators are legally protected before beta testing or external pilot trials begin.

Pre-launch (Freedom to Operate – FTO)

  • The process: Conduct a targeted FTO search on the finalised product design to ensure it does not infringe active patents in key markets, and the jurisdiction of search can depend on the markets of interest or manufacturing source.
  • The R&D benefit: Gives the business the green light to launch, preventing catastrophic post-launch injunctions and costly design rollbacks.

Best practices for early-stage inventions

To maximise the commercial and legal value of early-stage innovations, organizations should deploy three foundational practices.

1. The trade secret versus patent triage protocol

Not every invention should be patented. Patenting requires publishing the technical details to the world, which can act as a roadmap for competitors. Companies need a clear triage matrix:

CriterionPatenting PathwayTrade Secret Pathway
DetectabilityHigh (Competitor’s infringement is easily visible in the end product).Low (Invention is a manufacturing process or back-end algorithm).
Reverse-engineeringEasy (Competitors can easily duplicate the tech once they see it).Extremely Hard (Even with the product, the secret formula cannot be deduced).
Lifespan of TechModerate to Long (Tech will remain relevant for 5–20 years).Short (Fast-evolving code) OR Ultra-Long (e.g., Coca-Cola formula).
Regulatory FilingRequired (Publicly registered with patent offices like CIPO or IPOS).Strictly forbidden (Must be protected via encryption, NDAs, and access controls).

2. Establish ‘Cleanroom’ documentation practices

Whether using traditional paper notebooks or modern electronic lab notebooks, R&D teams must maintain clean, chronological, and unalterable records.

  • Notebooks should clearly state: Who conceived the idea, when it was conceived, who assisted, and what external resources (e.g., open-source software, third-party libraries, AI engines) were used.
  • Invention disclosure forms can assist in naming the inventors and the process in which the invention was arrived at.
  • Care should be taken in identifying the initial pool of people involved in conceiving the invention as the final form of the claims may not correctly identify the inventors, as well as identifying if any subcontractors or developers were involved.

3. Bulletproof joint R&D and contractor agreements

In the early stages, companies frequently use third-party developers, academic researchers, or engineering contractors.

  • The trap: Under Canadian, Singaporean, and US patent laws, unless there is a written contract stating otherwise, the inventor initially owns the rights.
  • The fix: Ensure every employment agreement and independent contractor agreement contains an “automatic, present assignment” clause (e.g., “Contractor hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in and to all Intellectual Property…” rather than a mere promise to assign in the future like “Contractor agrees to assign…”).

How early IP habits build enforcement-ready assets

The ultimate test of an IP asset is its utility in a dispute—whether to secure an injunction, extract licensing royalties, or defend a market monopoly. Here is how early-stage R&D practices directly enable successful litigation and enforcement:

Draft claims for ‘detectability’

The biggest mistake early-stage companies make is drafting patent claims around how an invention is made rather than how it behaves in the market.

  • The problem: If you patent an optimised server-side processing algorithm, you will struggle to enforce it. You cannot prove a competitor is using it without getting a court order to inspect their private server code — a highly expensive and legally difficult threshold to meet, especially under strict Canadian and Singaporean discovery rules.
  • Best practice: Instruct your patent agent to draft claims that target externally observable indicators or detectable API outputs.
    • Example: Instead of claiming the internal database sorting steps, claim “a user interface that displays [specific data structure] within  milliseconds of receiving [specific user query],” or target the specific data packets transmitted over the network. This makes proving infringement as simple as buying the competitor’s product and running a network packet analysis.

Build a multi-layered claim pyramid to survive validity challenges

When you sue a competitor for patent infringement, their first line of defence is almost always to counter claim your patent is invalid based on the principle of prior art.

  • Best practice: During the early R&D phase, do not just file one massive, broad claim. Work with counsel to draft a highly structured claim set containing broad independent claims for capturing competitors and a tight cascade of narrow, highly technical dependent claims as fallback positions.
  • The enforcement advantage: If a competitor unearths a surprise prior art document that invalidates your broad independent claims, your narrow dependent claims, which protect specific, optimised engineering parameters developed in Stage 3 of R&D, will survive. A single surviving dependent claim is all it takes to win an infringement lawsuit.

Maintain clean chains of title for immediate standing

In major patent jurisdictions, including Singapore and Canada, a plaintiff must have clean, unbroken legal standing to sue for infringement.

  • The problem: If a startup tries to file an emergency injunction to stop a massive competitor from launching a knock-off but has a missing assignment document from a disgruntled former contractor, the court will deny the injunction.
  • Best practice: By executing present assignments during Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the R&D process, you ensure that the company holds 100% undisputed legal ownership of the IP. When a copycat emerges, your litigation team can file for an immediate interlocutory injunction without a multi-month delay spent tracking down former employees to sign paperwork.

Leverage fast track systems to build injunction weaponry

Early-stage R&D often moves faster than patent offices. A competitor might launch a copycat while your patent is still pending in a multi-year examination backlog.

  • Best practice: Use expedited examination programs to secure granted claims quickly. For example, you can fast-track applications in Singapore via SG IP FAST to get a granted patent in as little as six months.
  • The enforcement advantage: In jurisdictions like Canada or Singapore, you cannot sue or obtain an injunction on a pending application. Getting a rapid, strategically tailored grant on a specific copycat design allows you to serve a cease-and-desist letter with teeth, halting the competitor’s market momentum before they can establish market share.

Conclusion

Enforceable IP is not generated by lawyers sitting in a vacuum – it is forged on the R&D lab bench and protected through deliberate steps. By embedding IP checkpoints into the R&D lifecycle, keeping meticulous documentation, and deliberately drafting claims with “detectability” in mind, innovative companies can transform their R&D departments from cost centres into legal fortresses. An IP strategy that is built for enforcement from day one ensures that when your technology succeeds in the market, your legal rights will successfully defend it.

JurisAsia IP professionals named in MIP 2024/25 Edition of IPSTARS

JurisAsia LLC on September 12, 2024

Tan Choon Leng, Dr Vivian Wei Cheng and Denise Ee from JurisAsia LLC, the Singapore-based law firm exclusively associated with Gowling WLG, have been recognised in Managing Intellectual Property’s (MIP) 2024/25 Edition of IPSTARS.

Vivian Wei Cheng and Denise Ee have been recognised in the “Rising star” list and Tan Choon Leng has been recognised as a “Notable practitioner”.

These rankings follow recent success for JurisAsia LLC which has been listed as one of the 10 Top Service Providers on GoBusiness IP Grow and recognised in the 2024 Asian Legal Business IP rankings as one of the region’s leading law firms. Dr Vivian Wei Cheng has also been recognised as one of the world’s foremost practitioners in the area of prosecution in the 2024 edition of Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000.

IP STARS is the leading specialist guide for companies or individuals looking for experienced legal practitioners to deal with contentious and non-contentious intellectual property issues. Managing IP has been covering IP law and practice worldwide since 1990.

Choon Leng, who is the Managing Partner at JurisAsia LLC, said: “We’re honoured to have our professionals included in the MIP 2024/25 Edition of IPSTARS amongst such esteemed peers. We have a fantastic team at JurisAsia, which works seamlessly with the wider Gowling WLG team. Our rising stars Vivian and Denise, who constantly demonstrate the deep domain knowledge and deliver amazing client orientated service, deserve a lot of praise. Congratulations to them and everyone who has been included in the list.”

Kate Swaine, Co-head of Intellectual Property, Global at Gowling WLG, added: “I’m extremely proud that the IP team at JurisAsia has been recognised in the IP STARS rankings which is testament to the hard work they have accomplished over the past year. Gowling WLG collaborates closely with JurisAsia on national and international IP matters, and the strength between the two firms enables us to provide high quality, innovative advice to a wide range of clients around the world.”

Recent changes to employment regime in Singapore

Tan Choon Leng, Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran on September 6, 2024

Introduction

There has been a suite of legislative changes to the Singapore employment landscape that were recently announced. These changes, together with the upcoming workplace discrimination law, mandatory flexible working arrangement guidelines and non-compete guidelines, are further evidence that Singapore is serious about improving the workplace environment and bringing its laws closer to global norms.

The recent changes can be surmised as follows: (1) a new shared parental leave scheme which allows eligible parents to enjoy an additional ten (10) weeks of paid leave when fully implemented; (2) a new SkillsFuture Jobseekers support scheme which grants eligible workers temporary financial assistance of up to S$6,000 over six (6) months; and (3) a new Platform Workers Bill was introduced in the Singapore parliament to provide enhanced rights and protections to platform workers, including representation through a union, financial protection and work safety.

(1) New shared parental leave scheme and mandatory four (4) weeks of paid paternity leave

At present, all working mothers are entitled to twelve (12) or sixteen (16) weeks of paid maternity leave, depending on several factors, including, but not limited to, whether the child is a Singaporean, and whether the mother has worked for an employer for at least three continuous months before the birth of the child, or if the mother is self-employed, whether she have been engaged for at least three continuous months and have lost income during the maternity leave period.

In his inaugural National Day Rally speech on 18 August 2024, the Prime Minister of Singapore Mr. Lawrence Wong announced that from 1 April 2025, eligible working fathers will be entitled to four (4) weeks of paid paternity leave which must be taken within twelve (12) months from the child’s date of birth. This is an increase from the existing two (2) weeks of mandatory paid paternity leave and two (2) weeks of discretionary paternity leave.

Significantly, Mr. Wong also announced that from 1 April 2025, eligible working parents will get an additional six (6) weeks of shared parental leave (“SPL“) which can be freely allocated between the spouses and used within twelve (12) months from the child’s date of birth. Employees are required to give a minimum of four (4) weeks’ notice to their employer before consuming any paid paternity, maternity or share parental leave. Employees are also encouraged to inform their employers as soon as possible when they are expecting a child, and mutually agree on leave plans with their employer. Details to be discussed and agreed on includes:

  • the number of weeks where the SPL is to be taken;
  • whether the leave taken is to be in continuous block or separate blocks; and
  • the start and end dates of the leave period(s).

(2) Support scheme for Jobseekers and Retrenched Workers

Historically, there has been little to no support for unemployed workers with the exception for low-income families that may apply for short to medium term assistance from social service agencies, and the one-off Job Support Scheme to safeguard livelihoods of local workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

This new support scheme for jobseekers and retrenched workers was announced at the National Day Rally and represents a paradigm shift in the Singapore Government’s approach to unemployment. This scheme is aimed at supporting lower and middle-income individuals who are involuntarily unemployed and will provide them with interim financial support of up to $6,000 over six (6) months so that they can focus on upgrading their skills for a better long-term job. Eligible participants will receive S$1,500 in the first month and subsequently tapering down. Once the applicant successfully secures a new job during the six (6) months period, they will not be eligible for the subsequent monthly payouts.

This support scheme will receive applications starting in April 2025 and it comes with a list of qualifying criteria. For starters, applicants must be a Singapore citizen and aged 21 and above at the time of application (from April 2025) or a Singapore permanent resident and aged 21 and above at the time of application (from first quarter of 2026). The applicant must have earned an average monthly income of S$5,000 or less in the last twelve (12) months, reside in a property with annual value of S$25,000 or less, and became unemployed due to involuntary reasons such as retrenchment, cessation of business, dismissal or termination due to illness, injury or accident. In addition, applicants must show that they have been actively looking for employment through job applications and/or attending career workshops or trainings and have not received a job support payout in the past three (3) years.

There will be safeguards to prevent any abuse for this scheme and more details are expected to be available closer to April 2025.

(3) Upcoming enactment of the Platform Workers Bill

There have been increasing calls to strengthen protections for workers in the gig economy, especially with the surge in platform workers since the Covid-19 pandemic. An advisory committee was convened in September 2021 to look into the issue and the Singapore government accepted all 12 recommendations from the final report of the committee. Platform workers will be treated as a separate class of workers from employees and self-employed, and will include ride-hailing drivers, food delivery workers, on-demand delivery workers or any worker that relies on digital matching platforms that provide income to the worker.

The Platform Workers Bill was read for the first time in Singapore Parliament on 6 August 2024 and it seeks to provide protections and privileges for platform workers in the following areas, (a) platform operators will be expected to make contributions to the Central Provident Fund on behalf of the platform workers, (b) platform operators will be legally obligated to purchase work injury compensation insurance for platform workers which will allow them to make claims under the relevant workplace injury legislation, and (c) platform workers will have greater representation in the form of new union-like bodies to negotiate and advocate for better working conditions.

Conclusion

With the upcoming changes, it would be incumbent on companies to prepare, review and put in place appropriate measures and processes to comply with the legislative requirements and to handle the anticipated increase in employment inquiries at the workplace.

If you are concerned about how to prepare for the upcoming changes or would simply like to have a deeper conversation about the changes, please contact our Singapore-based colleagues Tan Choon Leng, Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran, working in the offices of JurisAsia LLC with whom Gowling WLG has an exclusive association.

Future of non-compete clauses in Singapore – through the lens of employers

Tan Choon Leng, Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran on August 2, 2024

Imagine the scene – a small but growing company, say Company A, secures a promising candidate (Employee Z) after several rounds of interviews. Employee Z steadily rises through the ranks to become a senior executive of Company A with access to important clients and even confidential information relating to its growth strategy. Employee Z eventually attracts the attention of a larger company, Company B who makes an enticing offer to lead the creation of a new business line which will offer the same products as Company A. Through the grapevine, the management of Company A finds out that Employee Z is about to join Company B and decided that they will try to stop Employee Z from joining Company B in order to protect its business and prevent the potential loss of clients and trade secrets to a competing firm. However, after consulting with several lawyers, they then realise to their dismay that the non-compete clauses in Employee Z’s contract were drafted in a vague manner and may not be enforceable.

A delicate balance – a need for legislative intervention?

The construct in the paragraph above is entirely fictional but many companies have faced similar situations when a key employee leaves the organisation. Companies have devised several ways to retain talent and protect their business interests, and a common method is using non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in employment contracts. Such restrictions could include the prohibition to join competing companies in the same industry, or a prohibition to entice their ex-colleagues or ex-clients to the new company, which may give the new company an unfair advantage.

However, non-compete clauses are also problematic as it may impede upon the ability of an individual such as Employee Z from making a living. If Employee Z is trained in a specialised field and is prevented from joining any competing company for a long period of time, the possible employment options would be narrowed significantly. Other criticisms of the implications of such clauses include disadvantaging retrenched employees who are looking for new jobs, suppressing innovation and keeping wages low.

Given the need to balance the protection of the business of companies against the protection of the livelihood of workers, some jurisdictions have introduced legislation to reform the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. For example, in the United States of America, the Federal Trade Commission has enacted a ban against all non-compete clauses for workers, though it must be noted that the legality of this ban is currently challenged in court. Whereas in the United Kingdom, the Government has announced that they will be introducing a new rule that limits non-compete clauses in employment contracts to a maximum of three months, aiming to boost competition and innovation. In Asia, countries such as Malaysia and India have legislated against the use of non-compete clauses, though non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses remain enforceable.

Singapore’s position on non-compete clauses and recent developments in case law

In Singapore, non-compete clauses can be enforceable in certain situations (see paragraphs below). The Singapore government has also announced that the Minister of Manpower (“MOM”) and its tripartite partners are developing guidelines to assist employers in integrating non-compete clauses into their employment contracts. In the meantime, the enforceability of these clauses remains subject to the courts’ discretion.

Singapore’s position on this debate, as mentioned by the MOM’s written answer to MP Mr. Desmond Choo’s question in Parliament on 5 February 2024 on non-compete clauses in employment contracts is neatly summarised as follows:

“The tripartite partners’ position is that employers should only include restraint of trade clauses (also known as non-compete clauses) in their employees’ employment contracts if there is a genuine need for such clauses to protect legitimate business interests. Restraint of trade clauses must be reasonable in terms of scope, geographical area, and duration – they must balance employers’ needs to safeguard their businesses and employees’ ability to earn a living and should not be used to provide an unfair advantage. The courts have established clear principles on when such clauses are unreasonable, unjustified, and unenforceable.”

The Singapore Court of Appeal in the case of Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F International (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663 (“Man Financial”) sets out a two-step test for determining whether a restraint of trade clause (which includes a non-compete clause) is enforceable. The test comprises the following:

  • the court will first consider whether the restraint of trade clause protects a legitimate interest of the employer, AND
  • if the answer to (a) is yes, then the restraint of trade clause will be enforceable if it is reasonable in the interests of the parties, and reasonable in the public interest.

To satisfy the test as enumerated, both limbs must be satisfied. Further, where the protection of confidential information or trade secrets is already covered by another contractual clause (such as a confidentiality clause), the covenantee will have to demonstrate that the restraint of trade clause covers a legitimate proprietary interest over and above the protection of confidential information or trade secrets.

In two recent judgements released in 2024, namely Shopee Singapore Private Limited v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 (“Shopee”) and MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 (“MoneySmart”), the Singapore courts found that the employer in each case had failed to show that there was a legitimate proprietary interest to be protected. In Shopee’s case, the court held that the confidential information was set out along generic categories and was already protected by a confidentiality clause. Also, the employer failed to prove its assertion that there was a risk that the ex-employee would breach the confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions. Similarly, in MoneySmart, the employer failed to prove that the non-compete clause was meant to protect a legitimate proprietary interest that is over and above the protections afforded by the confidentiality clause. The court also rejected the employer’s assertion that the industry is a small and specialised one and that the employee had received training in this specialised field which would bring this case within the legitimate proprietary interest of maintaining a stable and trained workforce, as espoused by the court in PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Intrepid Offshore Construction Pte Ltd and another [2012] 4 SLR 36.

Relevance of restraint of trade clauses after Shopee and MoneySmart

From an employer’s perspective, it may be slightly disconcerting to read the facts and outcome of the case in Shopee and MoneySmart. From a simple overview of the facts, both employees in those cases were senior executives, had access to confidential information belonging to the employers, and are joining direct competitors to their former employers, and yet the courts declined to recognise that there was a legitimate proprietary interest of the employer to be protected. If the business interests of the company cannot be protected through non-compete clauses, does it mean that employers are powerless to prevent competition from swooping in to gain an advantage by enticing its staff?

However, the devil is always in the detail, and it should be noted that the courts in Shopee and MoneySmart declined to recognise a legitimate proprietary interest in relation to the non-compete restrictions only. In relation to the non-solicitation restrictions, the court in Shopee commented that it was not disputed that the employer has a legitimate proprietary interest, but there was no evidence that the non-solicitation restrictions were breached or that there was a risk of breach.

As shown in Shopee and MoneySmart, it is insufficient for an employer to make a general assertion that the ex-employee has access to trade secrets and confidential information and if there is also a confidentiality clause in the employment contract that protects the trade secrets and confidential information, the employer will also need to demonstrate that the clause covers a legitimate proprietary interest that is over and above the protection provided by a confidentiality clause.

In practice, we observed that non-compete clauses are often inserted into employment contracts as a default, and it is not unusual that only the time period of restrictions and the applicable jurisdictions are adjusted each time a new employee is onboarded. In the case of an employer who experiences a large volume of employee turnover, it would be impractical for the internal human resources or the legal team to revisit and tailor the template clauses to suit the individual circumstances for each new employee. A further difficulty is that unless the non-compete clauses are regularly updated to account for a change in job scope and responsibilities, there may be a risk that what was previously drafted may not be deemed reasonable later. In the absence of clearly defined proprietary interests in the employment contracts, the question is whether non-compete clauses are still relevant in employment contracts.

Takeaways

While non-compete clauses still have a deterrent effect on employees, it may be less relevant as a tool to prevent potential breaches. However, it may be advisable for employers to wait for the MOM guidelines which are expected in the latter part of 2024 before making changes to their template contracts. In the meantime, employers should ensure that detailed and contemporaneous employment records should be maintained, and confidential information and documents should be clearly marked. There are other mechanisms which may be helpful to protect the company and give the company some time to adjust in case their employees leave the company, such as garden leave and conducting exit interviews.

For the termination of a senior executive, it may also be prudent to enter into a separation agreement to restate and remind them of their confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations.

If you are considering a change to your template employment contracts or facing a potential issue with the enforcement of a non-compete clause, or would like to have a chat to find out more, please contact our Singapore-based colleagues Tan Choon Leng, Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran.

A guide to the upcoming flexible work arrangements in Singapore

Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran on June 11, 2024

Flexible working arrangements in Singapore: Are you ready for the new mandatory guidelines?

The global trend in supporting flexible working arrangements remains strong in a post-COVID-19 world, as regulators and employers address challenges in the form of workforce transformation and advances in digital technology. Increasingly, employers are realising key benefits from allowing this greater flexibility; such as cost-savings due to the need for less office space and gaining access to a wider talent pool, which is important in a tight labour market. These positive impacts are seeing employers be more receptive to giving their employees flexibility in choosing where and when to work.

Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower announced in April 2024 the implementation of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (the Guidelines), which will be effective from 1 December 2024. The Guidelines set out how employees should make a formal request for flexible work arrangements (FWAs), how employers and supervisors should handle those requests, and the minimum requirements employers must abide by to remain compliant with the mandatory Guidelines. 

What is a flexible working arrangement?

FWAs are work arrangements where employers and employees both agree to a variation from the standard work arrangement. The Guidelines set out the following three broad categories of FWAs:

  • Flexi-Place – where employees work flexibly from locations outside of the office.
  • Flexi-Time – where employees work flexibly at different timings, with no changes to total work hours and workload.
  • Flexi-Load – where employees work flexibly with different workloads and with commensurate remuneration.

How to request flexible working arrangements – key steps

  • The employee submits a formal FWA request – at a minimum, the formal FWA request must state, in writing, each of the following four requirements:
    • the date of the request;
    • the FWA requested (including its expected frequency and duration);
    • the reason for the request; and
    • the requested start and end date (if relevant).

    If the employer has instituted a process for employees to make a FWA request (for example, through a HR or company portal), the employee must follow that process in order for their request to be classified as a formal FWA request.

  • The employer should properly consider the FWA based on business needs (set out below).
  • The employer should communicate its decision within a timely manner in writing; at most, within two months. Any clarifications and discussions concerning the request should also be made within the two months.
  • If the FWA request is rejected, the employer should include the reason for doing so in writing and is encouraged to engage the employee on other alternatives.

    The employer may refer to Annex B of the Guidelines for how a formal FWA request could be responded to.

Scope:

The Guidelines only extend to:

  • Employees who have completed probation. However, employers can consider FWA requests from employees on probation.
  • Employees who have made a formal FWA request. Hence, if the employee does not satisfy the requirements for a FWA, it will be considered a non-formal FWA request and will not be covered by the Guidelines.

Factors for employers to consider:

When considering FWA requests, employers should consider factors pertinent to the employee’s role and the potential impact of the requested FWA on both the business and the employee’s job performance. Rejection of FWA requests should be grounded solely on reasonable business considerations, such as cost implications, productivity or output concerns, or practical feasibility, rather than personal biases against flexible working practices. Decisions that are influenced by a preference for traditional working arrangements, or a reluctance to depart from established customs, would be considered unreasonable grounds for rejecting a FWA request. 

How to prepare for the implementation of flexible working arrangements in Singapore?

  • Employers should start to devise a process for eligible employees to submit formal FWA requests and inform their workforce of the same.
  • Employers may consider implementing a formal policy for FWAs to streamline FWA requests or enquiries, detailing:
    • the types of FWAs available;
    • the guidelines for stakeholders (i.e. senior management, employees, supervisors and human resources) to consider in ensuring the successful implementation of FWAs; and
    • a code of conduct or expectation for the effective implementation of FWAs.
    • As far as reasonably practical, employers should explore ways to accommodate FWA requests, such as reviewing work processes or re-assigning work across team members, so that the company remains productive.

Are you ready for the new flexible working arrangements?

In introducing the new flexible working arrangements, the Singapore Government has purposefully chosen the route of mandatory guidelines, rather than enforcing the arrangements through legislation. Ms Gan Siow Huang, the co-chair of the tripartite workgroup, who made the recommendations to the Government and also the Minister of State for Manpower, said that a decision was made to introduce mandatory guidelines instead of legislation because of the need to be “administratively light”. She reiterates that the focus is on enabling and equipping workplaces, employers and employees, so that flexible working arrangements can be implemented in a sustainable way.

While the Guidelines are not law, and employers are permitted to reject (with reasons) FWA requests, employers who do not follow the Guidelines may be issued with a warning by the Ministry of Manpower and errant employers required to attend corrective workshops.

If you are wondering how to effectively implement the FWAs for your workplace or would like to have a chat to find out more, please contact our Singapore-based colleagues Vincent Tan and Prashaanth Rajandran, working in the offices of JurisAsia LLC with whom Gowling WLG has an exclusive association. We acknowledge, with thanks, the contributions of Ashley Tok, practice trainee to this article.

Dr. Vivian Wei Cheng recognised by IAM patent 1000 2024

JurisAsia LLC on June 7, 2024

The 2024 edition of Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 2024 has recognised Vivian Wei Cheng as one of the world’s foremost practitioners in the area of prosecution.

Vivian is a qualified Singapore patent attorney and Chinese patent attorney, specializing in areas such as life science and biotechnology, consumer care, food and retail, chemical and healthcare. She has a wealth of experience in drafting and prosecution of patent applications in Singapore, the Southeast Asia region and other major jurisdictions, as well as patent revocation and infringement actions.

Now in its 13th year, the IAM Patent 1000 is commonly regarded as the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking to identify world-class, private practice patent expertise, as well as leading expert witnesses in the US, and includes 50 country-specific chapters analysing their local patent professional services markets.

An extensive research process is performed over five months, with a team of full-time analysts conducting 1,800 interviews with industry specialists around the world and resulting in the definitive directory exclusively dedicated to identifying the world’s leading patent service providers. Only those identified by market sources for their exceptional skillsets and profound insights into patent matters feature in the IAM Patent 1000.

Dr Cheng said: “I am delighted to have been included in IAM’s Patent 1000 for 2024. To be recognised amongst such esteemed professionals is a huge honour and testament to all the hard work I have put in to provide patent expertise to our clients. Congratulations to all the colleagues who have made the listing.”

JurisAsia LLC distinguished in the 2024 Asian Legal business IP rankings

JurisAsia LLC on May 16, 2024

JurisAsia LLC, the Singapore-based law firm exclusively associated with Gowling WLG, has been recognised in the 2024 Asian Legal Business IP rankings as one of the region’s leading law firms.

The annual rankings categorise the top firms for intellectual property (IP) in Asia. JurisAsia LLC achieved a Tier 2 ranking for both Patents and Copyright/Trademarks for Singapore. The results highlight the strength of the firm’s expertise and reputation for specialist IP, life sciences and technology-focused work in the growing Singapore market.

Asia is increasingly becoming a major innovation hub, and, alongside this trend, there is a marked growth in the filing of patents and trademarks. Already, Singapore is the biggest source of international patent filings in Southeast Asia.

Managing partner, Tan Choon Leng, said: “We are delighted to once again be recognised for our expertise in Patents and Copyright/Trademarks, especially in life sciences and technology. Recognition of IP rights as a core competitive advantage for any strong business is constantly growing, especially in Southeast Asia, and our lawyers work tirelessly to ensure they remain at the forefront of any developments and deliver positive results for our clients. Congratulations to everyone at the firm for playing a role and contributing to secure these rankings.”  

JurisAsia provides high-quality, innovative, and commercial advice to clients across Southeast Asia. Its internationally ranked lawyers are leading experts in their field and help clients from a wide range of business sectors to secure, exploit and extract value from their IP.

Celebrating JurisAsia LLC as one of the 10 Top Service Providers on GoBusiness IP Grow  

JurisAsia LLC on April 25, 2024

JurisAsia LLC, the Singapore-based law firm exclusively associated with Gowling WLG, has been listed as one of the Top 10 intangible assets and intellectual property (IA/IP) service providers who have established the highest number of connections with enterprise users via GoBusiness IP Grow, from its launch in September 2023 to March 2024.

GoBusiness IP Grow is a one-stop platform that connects enterprises with the right IA/IP solutions to grow and protect their business globally.

The initiative is developed in collaboration with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Government Technology Agency (GovTech), Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), and IPOS International, in support of Singapore IP Strategy 2030.

As of March 2024, GoBusiness IP Grow has successfully facilitated over 650 connections between the listed service providers and enterprise users, reinforcing the platform’s role in fostering collaboration. The top five most viewed IP services are trade mark agents, patent agents, contract drafting, freedom-to-operate, and IP marketplace, offering insights into the current IP priorities among enterprises.

The award, symbolised by a digital badge, represents JurisAsia’s commitment and contributions to the IP ecosystem.

Vivian Wei Cheng, patent attorney at JurisAsia, said:

“It is fantastic to have gained this recognition from such an eminent external partner – we look forward to utilising this platform within our future business development efforts.”