Nokia GmbH v IPCOM GmbH & Co KG [2011] EWCA Civ 6 (20 January 2011)

Nokia GmbH v IPCOM GmbH & Co KG [2011] EWCA Civ 6 (20 January 2011)

The Synch Patent is invalid for obviousness because, on the proper construction of 'preprocessing' and 'up-to-date', the claimed features were obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art and common general knowledge. The lock-on synchronisation feature was also obvious. The judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the Access Rights Patent at or after trial, as allowing such amendments would have been procedurally unfair and contrary to established principles.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 6
Parties
Claimant: Nokia GMBH; Claimant: Nokia UK Ltd; Claimant/counter Action Defendant: Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation); Defendant/counter Action Claimant/appellant: IPCOM GMBH & Co KG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Amendment, Obviousness, Procedural Fairness, Infringement, Revocation
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Amendment Obviousness Procedural Fairness Infringement +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nokia GMBH

Claimant

Nokia UK Ltd

Claimant

Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation)

Claimant/counter Action Defendant

IPCOM GMBH & Co KG

Defendant/counter Action Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Synch Patent is invalid for obviousness
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'preprocessing' and 'up-to-date' in the Synch Patent
  3. 3 Whether the lock-on synchronisation feature is obvious

Ratio Decidendi

The Synch Patent is invalid for obviousness because, on the proper construction of 'preprocessing' and 'up-to-date', the claimed features were obvious to the skilled person in light of the prior art and common general knowledge. The lock-on synchronisation feature was also obvious. The judge was correct to refuse permission to amend the Access Rights Patent at or after trial, as allowing such amendments would have been procedurally unfair and contrary to established principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Synch Patent held invalid for obviousness; no need to consider infringement cross-appeal
  • Appeal against refusal to amend Access Rights Patent dismissed; permission to appeal granted but refused on merits