Post-Grant Patent Opposition Proceedings to Take Effect on 31 December 2025
Malaysia’s long-awaited post-grant patent opposition regime comes into operation on 31 December 2025, bringing into force the amendments made to the Patents Act 1983 (“1983 Act“) and its accompanying Patents Regulations 1986. The amendments mark the introduction of post-grant opposition proceedings and the necessary procedural framework.
The new section 55A of the 1983 Act, introduced by the amendment, allows any interested person to oppose a granted patent within six months from the publication of its grant, provided that no court proceedings have commenced. Additionally, non-residents must provide security for costs upon filing a notice of opposition. The opposition is administrative in nature and will be heard before the Registrar of Patents.
To initiate the opposition proceedings, a notice of opposition supported by evidence in the form of a Statutory Declaration must be filed. The specific grounds for opposition must be those as provided under section 56(2)(a), (b) or (c), namely that the claimed invention (i) is not patentable; (ii) fails to meet statutory requirements; or (iii) lacks necessary drawings.
Once the notice is accepted, the patent owner has three months to file a counterstatement with supporting evidence and may request to amend the patent. The opponent may then reply within a further three-month period from the date of issuance of the counterstatement. Both parties will then submit written submissions.
An Ad Hoc Opposition Committee may assist the Registrar in reviewing the case, where the Registrar may decide to maintain, amend, or invalidate the patent. Any party aggrieved by the decision may then appeal to the High Court.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Securities Commission Malaysia Issues New Guidelines on Social Exchange Platforms
The Securities Commission Malaysia (“SC”) has issued the Guidelines on Social Exchange Platforms (“Guidelines”). These Guidelines introduce a regulatory framework to govern the operation of Social Exchange Platforms (“SEPs”). They also deal with non-profit organisations (“NPOs”) conducting fundraising via approved Social Exchange Platforms (“SEPs”) for social impact projects. The Guidelines feature several key elements, including:
- Registration and governance requirements
Operators are required to be registered with the SC to operate an SEP, observing similar governance and risk standards expected of capital-market intermediaries. To be registered with the SC, applicants must satisfy specific requirements including (i) being incorporated in and having its operations in Malaysia; (ii) minimum paid-up capital and maintained shareholders’ funds of RM500,000; and (iii) sound risk management and operational systems.
- Eligible organisations and social impact projects
NPOs seeking fundraising on an SEP must meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Guidelines, which include having an operational track record of three years with at least 70% of activities relating to social impact projects, and a minimum annual spending of RM100,000 in the past three financial years. The social impact projects of NPOs must fall into any of the following categories: (i) social welfare; (ii) cultural preservation and heritage; or (iii) environmental sustainability and conservation.
The Guidelines is a step forward to integrating social finance into Malaysia’s capital-market architecture, and is intended to increase transparency and facilitate easy institutional adoption. Following a pilot programme in January 2025, the SC appears operationally ready to implement the regime with eight different types of applications. However, operational questions and the potential impact on the scope of existing and foreign fund-raising platforms remain to be determined, even for NPOs operating outside the scope of the projects within these Guidelines. As the Guidelines are effective from its date of issuance, stakeholders should closely monitor the SC’s implementation approach and assess readiness to comply.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Regulatory Developments in the Financial Sector
In 2025, Malaysia’s financial regulatory framework has undergone significant developments, as the Government focused on strengthening and addressing the country’s consumer protection laws in relation to debt and personal finance. This comprehensive push signals a shift towards a more transparent, accountable and consumer-centric financial ecosystem.
An overview of key regulatory developments in the financial sector include:
- Passing of the Consumer Credit Act 2025 (“CCA”)
The CCA was passed by the Dewan Negara on 4 September 2025 and will be implemented in phases once it comes into force (slated by this year-end or early 2026). The CCA introduces new licensing and approval requirements primarily for non-bank credit providers and credit service providers who were previously largely unregulated. These include (i) “credit businesses” such as Buy-Now-Pay-Later (“BNPL”) operators, leasing, factoring, moneylenders, hire purchase and credit sale providers; and (ii) “credit service businesses” involved with debt collection, online crowdlending, and other debt management services. The core objective is to establish a unified regulatory framework and enhance consumer protection in relation to debt.
Key measures include mandatory licensing under the newly established Consumer Credit Commission (“CCC”), enforcing fair and responsible conduct, and mandating clearer disclosure of terms and costs. The CCA will supplement existing legislation such as the Moneylenders Act 1951 and Hire-Purchase Act 1967, rather than replace such frameworks.
- Bank Negara Malaysia’s (“BNM”) new Personal Financing Guideline (“Guideline”)
This Guideline, applicable to licensed banks (including licensed Islamic banks and prescribed development institutions), has introduced transparency obligations and responsible lending practices for certain personal financing products (including where BNPL is offered by banks). Critically, it includes the prohibition of flat-rate interest calculation methods that incorporate the “Rule of 78”.[1] The Rule of 78 is a decades-old method that front-loaded interest payments, disproportionately penalising consumers who settle their loans early. Its abolition mandates that licensed financial service providers use the reducing balance for interest/profit computation, ensuring a fairer outcome for borrowers. The Guideline also reinforced the 10-year maximum tenure for personal financing and introduced clearer rules for property-secured personal financing. It also now requires a mandatory financial education module for consumers applying for personal financing exceeding RM100,000. The Guidelines also explicitly requires affordability assessments for borrowers, particularly in the context of offering BNPL products.
The passing of the CCA and the introduction of the Guideline reflect the Government’s and BNM’s ongoing commitment to upgrade the country’s financial consumer protection laws and place safety barriers against unsustainable personal debt commitments. The recent passing of the Hire Purchase (Amendment) Bill on 8 October 2025 (which also incorporates a ban on the Rule of 78 in calculating front-loaded interest for hire purchase transactions) further highlights the country’s commitment. These changes represent significant operational and compliance milestones for all financial and credit providers, and for the consumer, necessitating a thorough review of existing product offerings, disclosure practices and internal governance framework.
—————————————–
[1] Please take note the Guideline came into effect on 30 September 2025, save for paragraphs 10.3 to 10.13 and paragraphs 10.17 to 10.18 which will come into effect on 1 January 2027. This includes the prohibition of Rule of 78 and the mandatory financial education module for personal financing.
Regulatory Developments in the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Space
The third quarter of 2025 continued to see significant regulatory activity in the Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) space. Key developments include:
- Public Consultation Paper on Proposed Regulatory Framework for Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Messages
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”) has issued a public consultation paper seeking feedback on its proposed regulatory framework for Unsolicited Commercial Electronic messages (“UCEM”), commonly known as spam messages. The paper outlines MCMC’s baseline positions for developing subsidiary regulations to support the new prohibition under section 233A of the Communications and Multimedia (Amendment) Act 2025 (“CMA Amendment Act”), which criminalises the sending of UCEMs.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
- Court of Appeal’s Landmark Ruling on the Constitutionality of Provisions Regulating Offensive Content
In Heidy Quah Gaik Li v The Government of Malaysia [2025] MLJU 2677, the Court of Appeal delivered a landmark ruling holding that the prohibition against content that is “offensive … with the intention to annoy” under section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”) is unconstitutional. This provision has been a foundational base relied upon by the Government to regulate online expression and content. The ruling has wide implications for content moderation and enforcement under the CMA. The Government is currently seeking leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
- New Personal Data Protection Guidelines on Data Protection Officers’ Competency, Training and Development
The Personal Data Protection Department (“JPDP” or Jabatan Perlindungan Data Peribadi) issued three additional guidelines aimed at clarifying expectations on the competency, training and professional development of appointed Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”). These are: (i) the DPO Competency Guideline; (ii) the Management of DPO Training Service Providers Guideline; and (iii) the DPO Development Pathway and Training Roadmap. Collectively, these guidelines aim to raise professional standards for DPOs and ensure consistency in the delivery of DPO training and certification programmes.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
- Discussion Paper on Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the Financial Sector
Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”) released a discussion paper outlining its proposed approach and policy considerations for the adoption of AI in Malaysia’s financial sector. The paper sets out BNM’s preliminary views on AI governance, accountability and risk management frameworks to ensure responsible and trustworthy use of AI by financial institutions.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
- Public Consultation Paper on Proposed Regulatory Framework for Retention, Preservation and Disclosure of Communications Data for Investigation Purposes
MCMC issued a public consultation paper to obtain stakeholder feedback on the proposed regulatory framework governing the retention, preservation and disclosure of communications data for investigative purposes. The proposal, developed pursuant to the recent changes introduced by the CMA Amendment Act, seeks to enhance law enforcement capabilities while safeguarding privacy through procedural safeguards and due process requirements.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
- Issuance of the National Cloud Computing Policy (“NCCP”)
The Government launched the NCCP, which outlines a strategic roadmap to accelerate national cloud adoption across government, industry and cloud service providers. The policy sets out Malaysia’s vision for a secure, trusted and resilient cloud ecosystem, and provides insight into the Government’s policy direction and regulatory posture on cloud adoption.
- Public Consultation Paper on Review of Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code (“Content Code”)
The Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (CMCF) issued a public consultation paper on proposed revisions to the Content Code. The revisions aim to address evolving digital challenges, enhance child protection safeguards, strengthen advertising and platform responsibility rules, and introduce new standards for AI and inclusivity. The consultation is open until 7 November 2025.
- Public Consultation Paper on Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Regulations 2013 (“PDP Regulations”)
JPDP issued a public consultation paper inviting feedback on proposed amendments to the PDP Regulations, a key subsidiary legislation under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (“PDPA”). The proposed amendments are intended to align the PDP Regulations with the recent legislative changes introduced under the Personal Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2024, and to provide more detailed operational guidance for compliance with the PDPA’s seven Personal Data Protection Principles.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Federal Court Clarifies Law on Total Failure of Consideration, Overruling Previous Decision
In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong & Other Appeals [2025] CLJU 1556 (“Lim Swee Choo“), the Federal Court clarified that the right to terminate a contract for repudiation under section 40 of the Contracts Act 1950 does not depend on the question of whether there is a total failure of consideration. This decision effectively overruled the Court’s earlier decision in Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M-Concept Sdn Bhd [2009] 3 MLRA 1 (FC) (“Berjaya Times Square“).
In Berjaya Times Square, the Federal Court had imported the concept of total failure of consideration into section 40 of the Contracts Act 1950, which governs a party’s right to terminate a contract where the other party “has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing, his promise in its entirety”. The Court in that case applied the test of total failure of consideration by asking “whether the party in default has failed to perform his promise in its entirety.”
In Lim Swee Choo, the Federal Court held that the doctrine of total failure of consideration is confined to cases concerning the availability of restitutionary relief and should not be used to determine whether the innocent party has a right to terminate a contract for breach and claim for damages for breach. Therefore, the cause of action for fundamental breach giving rise to the right to terminate is separate and independent of the cause of action in restitution for the recovery of monies in cases where there is a total failure of consideration.
The Federal Court held that a breach would only entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract if it amounts to: (i) a breach of a condition; (ii) a sufficiently serious breach of an innominate or intermediate term; or (iii) a repudiation of the contract. It also clarified that the legal principles applicable to restitutionary remedies do not govern the question of whether a contract may be terminated for breach.
Federal Court Considers Power to Review an Arbitral Award, and Enforcement via the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 vs the Arbitration Act 2005: ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1955
In this recent judgment of Malaysia’s highest court, an issue arose vis-a-vis the appropriate mode of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award which had been registered as a judgment in the foreign jurisdiction in which the award had been handed down, and the powers of the Courts to review the award.
Background
The appellants had obtained an arbitral award from a London arbitral tribunal, but the respondent did not comply with the award nor apply to set aside or challenge the said award. The appellants then obtained a confirmation judgment from the English High Court to register and enforce the London award.
The appellants then obtained an ex-parte order at the Malaysian High Court to register the English High Court judgment under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (“REJA”). The respondent applied to set aside the order. However, before the determination of the setting aside application, the respondent filed an application for trial identifying four “potential issues” requiring a trial.
The issues comprised matters which were the subject matter of adjudication by the London tribunal, including whether there was a contract containing an arbitration agreement and whether the English judgment was therefore obtained by fraud.
Earlier Decisions of the Courts
The Malaysian High Court dismissed the application for trial, stating in short that the respondent’s application was an abuse of court process as it was trying to procure a decision of the Malaysian court which was inconsistent with the award of the London tribunal by re-litigating issues which have already been raised.
The Malaysian Court of Appeal, however, overturned the High Court’s decision and allowed the respondent’s application for a trial, stating that:
- The fact that the arbitral tribunal had heard the respondent’s witnesses and evidence on the issue of fraud and dismissed it did not prevent the respondent from raising them in the Malaysian court. When so raised, the Malaysian court would need to hear the issue de novo (i.e. afresh) as a tribunal’s decision on its own jurisdiction is never final.
- Here, the appellants had the upper hand in deciding which provisions of the Malaysian statute to proceed under with respect to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. The more appropriate statute to do this was under the Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA“). However, by electing to proceed under the REJA, the respondent should not be deprived of any defences that may be available to it had the enforcement been under sections 38 and 39 of the AA (i.e. the various grounds for refusing recognition/enforcement of an award provided under the AA).
Decision of the Federal Court
The Malaysian Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and held that it was incorrect to subject the REJA to the terms of the AA, as the REJA signifies a special relationship of reciprocity which Malaysia enjoys with other specific jurisdictions only (e.g. the United Kingdom or Singapore), unlike the AA.
In that regard, in an application to register a foreign confirmation judgment under REJA arising from an award, a review would be undertaken only where it is truly a question of whether the tribunal had the power and jurisdiction to hear the dispute. This was distinct from a review of the factual findings of the tribunal relating to fraud as a part of the factual matrix of the case.
Effectively therefore, fraud arising from adjudicating the factual merits of the case ought not to be open to a full review. The respondent’s allegations were essentially matters of evidence which required determination by the tribunal in relation to the validity of the claim itself, as opposed to pure matters of law.
Thus, the courts should be slow to encourage a full-blown rehearing which would effectively amount to a second bite of the cherry in relation to some of the issues raised. Where the issues relate to the construction of contracts, no oral evidence is warranted.
The judgment of the Federal Court, in addition to confirming that parties have the flexibility to enforce an arbitral award via the AA, or the REJA (if the confirmation judgment has been obtained), also provides clarity on the scope of judicial scrutiny under the REJA. It reinforces Malaysia’s commitment to reciprocity and procedural efficiency in cross-border dispute resolution, while upholding party autonomy and the autonomy of arbitration.
Please note that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice
