Kelvin Tan

These are a few of the matters that Kelvin has handled:

• US$120 million smartphone dispute – Represented a listed electronics manufacturer in an SIAC arbitration against a European principal in disputes arising from development and manufacturing agreements for a new smartphone, involving cross-claims relating to the design and manufacture of smartphone handsets and software applications.

• Represented a leading insurer in termination of a bancassurance agreement – Obtained an award for an international insurer against a bank denying a claim in excess of $10 million, which followed the termination of a long-term bancassurance distribution agreement.

• US$80 million joint venture dispute – Successfully represented a leading European business software house in an SIAC arbitration against its South Asian joint venture partner, arising out of a failed joint venture.

• Online game publishing dispute – Represented a North Asian developer of a massively multiplayer online game in an arbitration constituted under the ICC Rules against its publisher in a claim for unlawful termination of a software publishing contract.

• US$60 million OEM contract dispute – Acted for a component manufacturer in an LCIA arbitration against a European principal in respect of disputes over an OEM contract for telecommunications transmission products.

• Automotive joint venture arbitration – Represented a national automotive manufacturer and obtained an award against its former North Asian joint venture partner for breaches of their agreement for the manufacturing and transfer of technology.

• Semiconductor patent dispute – Acted for a world-leading semiconductor test and inspection company against its European competitor in the High Court in respect of cross-claims for infringement and invalidation in respect of patents for semiconductor inspection modules.

• Cross-jurisdictional trade mark dispute – Represented the owner of a popular hospitality business against an invalidation claim against its registered trade mark brought on the basis that it was a well-known mark, and that the registration was held on trust.

• Exception to specific performance of land – Represented a security holder at trial and before the Court of Appeal to resist specific performance of the sale of a good class bungalow property valued at $40 million.