Research In Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing SARL & Ors

Research In Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing SARL & Ors

The patent claims (1 and 1B) are invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art (particularly Mowser, Pythia, and Bartlett). The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention were either disclosed or would have been obvious to a skilled person. The trial judge made no error of principle, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Research in Motion UK Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Inpro Licensing S. A. R. L.; Part 20 Defendant/respondent: T-Mobile (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Patent Infringement, Amendment of Patent Claims
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Obviousness Patent Infringement Amendment of Patent Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Research in Motion UK Limited

Claimant/respondent

Inpro Licensing S. A. R. L.

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

T-Mobile (UK) Limited

Part 20 Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent claims (1 and 1B) are invalid for obviousness over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments to the patent are allowable
  3. 3 Whether the BlackBerry system infringes the patent

Ratio Decidendi

The patent claims (1 and 1B) are invalid for obviousness over the cited prior art (particularly Mowser, Pythia, and Bartlett). The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention were either disclosed or would have been obvious to a skilled person. The trial judge made no error of principle, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.