Issue #67: Coffee Wars
Welcome to the latest edition of OiA!
Here are the latest 🌶 headlines in APAC:
China: China’s National Intellectual Property Administration invalidates a key battery patent previously belonging to LG Chem
South Korea: South Korea decides not to appeal the Singapore International Commercial Court decision to uphold the $32 million ISDS award made against it in favour of US-based private equity firm Mason over the Samsung C&T (we hear directly from the counsel involved in today’s Spotlight below!)
Ling Yah
P/S: Know of any interesting seminars happening? Drop us a note at editor@overheard.asia!
P/P/S: Scroll to the bottom of this newsletter to find out where you can find the food featured above!
Grey Market Sales
Global Healthcare Product Solutions (“GHPS”), an indirect subsidiary of Chinese multinational BYD Company, has defeated a billion-dollar claim brought by CPN Medical Supplies (“CPN“) over a pandemic-era mask supply deal.
🍿 What Happened?
The dispute arose over an agreement for GHPS to sell 1.2 billion N95 respirator masks manufactured by BYD to CPN (“Agreement“). The Agreement was terminated by GHPS in 2020, prompting CPN to file a lawsuit in California for over USD 1.2 billion.
The case was later moved to arbitration, where retired judge Daniel Buckley served as sole arbitrator.
👀 Now
On 11 March 2025, Buckley ruled that GHPS had not breached the contract, and that termination was justified due to CPN’s material breaches. These included undisclosed third-party resales of the masks and a breach of confidentiality stemming from secret recordings at BYD’s factory, which later circulated among an unauthorised network of resellers.
Further, while CPN had misrepresented its intent and overstated its need for the masks, the arbitrator found those misstatements were not material enough to invalidate the contract entirely or support a claim for lost profits.
Coffee Wars
Nestlé’s once-cozy joint venture with Thailand’s Mahagitsiri family – Quality Coffee Products Co., Ltd. (“QCP”) - has soured dramatically.
🍿 What Happened?
The dispute erupted after Nestlé unilaterally terminated their partnership agreement on 31 December 2024, citing an international arbitration court ruling that the Mahagitsiris contest as legally flawed under Thai law.
Tensions escalated when the Min Buri Civil Court granted the Mahagitsiris an emergency injunction on 3 April 2025, blocking Nestlé from manufacturing, distributing or importing Nescafé products in Thailand.
Nestlé promptly appealed and questioned the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case belonged in the Central Intellectual Property Court instead.
The Mahagitsiris claim Nestlé aims to destroy their 50-year contribution to Thailand’s coffee industry by replacing local production with imports to secure all profits.
Meanwhile, Nestlé maintains that it holds exclusive rights to the Nescafé trademark and has controversially informed business partners that they can resume the sale and distribution of instant coffee products under the Nestlé brand in Thailand despite the injunction.
👀 What’s Next?
The Min Buri Civil Court has set the hearing for 20 June.
DON’T Copy-Paste!
This is a smack forehead moment, with Singapore’s Court of Appeal setting aside an ICC award (“Award”) after discovering that 47% of the Award was undisputedly copied from two earlier arbitral awards. 🤦🏻♀️
🍿 What Happened?
The Award relates to a 2023 railway dispute between an Indian freight corridor management company and a consortium of three infrastructure firms.
When negotiations failed, the matter proceeded to ICC arbitration in Singapore, with former Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, leading a three-member tribunal.
On 8 April 2025, the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the annulment of the Award, having found that the Award had ‘undisputedly copied’ 212 out of 451 paragraphs from two previous arbitral awards authored by Misra had authored.
The court ruled that this “copy-paste” approach violated principles of natural justice and undermined the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process. It concluded that the tribunal failed to independently assess the facts and arguments of the case, instead reusing prior reasoning without accounting for differences in contracts, submissions, or context.
👀 TL;DR
When drafting legal documents (including judgments), don’t just copy paste indiscriminately! 🤦🏻♀️
Special Edition Spotlight
In this special edition Spotlight, we take a closer look through the lens of counsel in a major investment treaty dispute.
Food Reveal
Looking for some delicious smoked duck risotto?
Are you a student or young lawyer?
Want to get involved in helping to run Overheard? Meet senior practitioners? Do legal research with real world impact?
We're always looking for bright, young talent like yourself so if you're interested, give us a holler at team@overheard.asia!
Special thanks to Overheard in Asia’s sponsor:
David Grief was described as "the Law's Middleman" (Business Times, 2021). You can reach out to him at dg@davidgrief.com if you need help identifying the right lawyer, arbitrator or expert for your matters, or even if you just want to grab a drink 🍵🍺 with someone who has managed and mentored lawyers for almost 5️⃣0️⃣ years!