Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors

Claims 1 and 9 are entitled to priority because the priority document, read with the skilled person's common general knowledge, directly and unambiguously discloses polling upon assembly. The invention is not obvious over Motorola TDoc, as the combination of byte and PDU counters was not clearly pointed to by the prior art and was missed by those skilled in the art. Ericsson TDoc does not destroy novelty because it was not made available to the public before the priority date in the relevant time zone of the patent office.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Unwired Planet International Limited; Defendant/appellant: Huawei Technologies Co. Limited; Defendant/appellant: Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Limited; Tenth Party: Unwired Planet LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment and order of the High Court upheld.
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Priority, Obviousness, Novelty, Patent Infringement, Telecommunications Standards
Intellectual Property Patent Law Entitlement to Priority Obviousness Novelty Patent Infringement Telecommunications Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unwired Planet International Limited

Claimant/respondent

Huawei Technologies Co. Limited

Defendant/appellant

Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Limited

Defendant/appellant

Unwired Planet LLC

Tenth Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and/or 9 of the patent are disentitled to priority due to lack of disclosure in the priority document of polling 'upon assembly'
  2. 2 Whether claims 1 and 9 lack inventive step over Motorola TDoc
  3. 3 Whether claims 1 and 9 lack novelty due to Ericsson TDoc being made available before the priority date

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 1 and 9 are entitled to priority because the priority document, read with the skilled person's common general knowledge, directly and unambiguously discloses polling upon assembly. The invention is not obvious over Motorola TDoc, as the combination of byte and PDU counters was not clearly pointed to by the prior art and was missed by those skilled in the art. Ericsson TDoc does not destroy novelty because it was not made available to the public before the priority date in the relevant time zone of the patent office.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment and order of the High Court upheld.

Orders

  • Claims 1 and 9 of the patent are entitled to priority.
  • Claims 1 and 9 are not obvious over Motorola TDoc.