I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 only issues before us concern the claims for copyright infringement and breach of confidence. The decision below Copyright infringement 15 The Judge found that copyright subsisted in the Category 1 to 3 materials under ss 7A(1)(a) and 7A(1)(b) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Copyright Act”) (GD at [50], [71] and [84]). The appellant owned this copyright by virtue of the assignment clauses in its employees’ contracts of employment and its Employee IT Security Policy 2007. Copyright owned by IAdmin (Shanghai) was assigned to the appellant through a deed of assignment (GD at [51], [72] and [85]). The Judge determined that copyright would only be infringed if the respondents had copied a substantial part of the copyrighted works (GD at [45], relying on Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2016] 2 SLR 165 at [239]). 16 In respect of the Category 1 materials, the appellant submitted that two main aspects of its software had been substantially reproduced in the third respondent’s software: its database structures and result upload functionality. A “database structure” refers to the manner in which content in a database table is organised. The appellant’s “result upload functionality” describes its software’s use of Java codes to upload payroll results into its payroll database (GD at [52] and [53]). On the former, the Judge compared the overall architecture and design of the third respondent’s software against that of the appellant’s (GD at [56]). He concluded that the two were fundamentally different in terms of their database architecture and the development of their respective source codes. On a balance of probabilities, he found that the third respondent’s software could not have been copied from the appellant’s (GD at [57]–[59]). There was 9