I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 similarly no substantial copying of the appellant’s result upload functionality (GD at [61]). 17 The Judge took the Category 2 materials to consist of the appellant’s payitem databases and CPF database (GD at [66]). For completeness, he also considered the Excel documents generated from these tables. One exception was “payitem setup_iAdmin.xls”. This was disregarded for the copyright claim because it had only been referenced in the appellant’s closing submissions as a file that the first respondent had downloaded from its product demonstration platform (the “Demonstration Platform”) (GD at [64]). 18 The Judge found that there was no substantial copying of the Category 2 materials because there were notable structural differences between the appellant’s and the third respondent’s databases (GD at [73]). The appellant claimed that the respondents had used the Payitem Bibles to develop the third respondent’s payitem bible, a database of all possible entries that can be inserted into a payslip and the various parameters necessary for computation. There were two relevant Excel documents, “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls” and “payitem_bible.xls”. “Payitem Bible_Singapore.xls” was a payitem list whilst “payitem_bible.xls” was generated from the third respondent’s database table, “PR_PAYITEM”. Similarities between the respondents’ files and the Payitem Bibles were limited to copied facts such as payitem descriptions and wage types, not the arrangement of those facts. Copyright protection did not extend to the former, and there was therefore no infringement in that regard (GD at [71], [75]– [76] and [79]). The Judge went on to consider the alleged similarities between the appellant’s CPF database and the third respondent’s database table, “PR_CPF_RATES_SGP”. He found there was clear evidence of a difference in organisation, and accordingly held that no copying had occurred (GD at [81]). 10