Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors

Clause 4.3 of the 1998 Agreement is to be construed as being restricted to pure CDMA standards and does not extend to hybrid systems such as HSPA, which is a hybrid TDMA/CDMA system. The extrinsic evidence supports this interpretation, and if necessary, the contra proferentem rule would also support Philips’ case. Therefore, HTC’s acts of alleged infringement involving HSPA are not covered by the covenant not to assert in clause 4.3.

Parties
Claimant: Koninklijke Philips NV; First Defendant: Asustek Computer Incorporation; Second Defendant: Asustek (UK) Limited; Third Defendant: ASUS Technology PTE. LTD; Fourth Defendant: HTC Corporation; Fifth Defendant: HTC Europe Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Claim dismissed on preliminary issue; clause 4.3 does not extend to HTC’s acts of infringement complained of by Philips.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Standard Essential Patents (seps), Interpretation of Contracts, Competition Law, Telecommunications Standards
Intellectual Property Contract Law Patent Infringement Standard Essential Patents (seps) Interpretation of Contracts Competition Law 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koninklijke Philips NV

Claimant

Asustek Computer Incorporation

First Defendant

Asustek (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

ASUS Technology PTE. LTD

Third Defendant

HTC Corporation

Fourth Defendant

HTC Europe Co. Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4.3 of the 1998 Agreement extends to HTC’s alleged acts of infringement involving HSPA technology
  2. 2 Whether HSPA is covered by a CDMA Wireless Industry Standard as defined in the 1998 Agreement
  3. 3 Whether HSPA is excluded by the proviso to clause 4.3 as a TDMA system

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4.3 of the 1998 Agreement is to be construed as being restricted to pure CDMA standards and does not extend to hybrid systems such as HSPA, which is a hybrid TDMA/CDMA system. The extrinsic evidence supports this interpretation, and if necessary, the contra proferentem rule would also support Philips’ case. Therefore, HTC’s acts of alleged infringement involving HSPA are not covered by the covenant not to assert in clause 4.3.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on preliminary issue; clause 4.3 does not extend to HTC’s acts of infringement complained of by Philips.