Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 266 (12 April 2017)

Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 266 (12 April 2017)

The priority document, when read through the eyes of the skilled person with common general knowledge, directly and unambiguously disclosed the invention as claimed, including counting and polling upon assembly. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 were entitled to priority. The invention was not obvious over Motorola TDoc, as the combination of two counters (PDU and byte) in a single mechanism was not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art. The claims were novel.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 266
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 Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Priority, Obviousness, Novelty, Patent Construction
Intellectual Property Patents Entitlement to Priority Obviousness Novelty Patent Construction

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 7 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 Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1 and/or 9 of the patent are entitled to priority from the priority document
  2. 2 Whether claims 1 and 9 lack inventive step (are obvious) over Motorola TDoc
  3. 3 Whether claims 1 and 9 lack novelty due to prior publication

Ratio Decidendi

The priority document, when read through the eyes of the skilled person with common general knowledge, directly and unambiguously disclosed the invention as claimed, including counting and polling upon assembly. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 were entitled to priority. The invention was not obvious over Motorola TDoc, as the combination of two counters (PDU and byte) in a single mechanism was not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art. The claims were novel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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