Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (08 January 2020)

Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (08 January 2020)

Claim 1 of EP (UK) 3 197 206 is not entitled to priority because the priority document only discloses a fixed time allocation approach, whereas the claim covers situations where only transport parameters are fixed and not timing. The difference is materially wider and relates to a different concept, so it is not the same invention. Therefore, the 206 patent is invalid. The core inventive concept disclosed in the priority document is limited to fixed time allocation, and the claims must be supported by this disclosure. The VOIP overhead problem was not part of the common general knowledge at the priority date. Claim construction must reflect the specification as a whole, and 'fixed...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 14 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l; First Defendant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd; Second Defendant: Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd; Third Defendant: ZTE Corporation; Fourth Defendant: ZTE (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Action / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
EP (UK) 3 197 206 patent invalid for lack of priority; other claims subject to further technical analysis but not decided in this judgment.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Claim Construction, Priority, Added Matter, Obviousness, Novelty, Telecommunications Standards
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Claim Construction Priority Added Matter Obviousness Novelty +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l

Claimant

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

First Defendant

Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd

Second Defendant

ZTE Corporation

Third Defendant

ZTE (UK) Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Action / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents EP (UK) 1 878 177, EP (UK) 3 267 722 and EP (UK) 3 197 206 are valid and essential to telecommunications standards
  2. 2 Whether claim 1 of EP (UK) 3 197 206 is entitled to priority
  3. 3 Whether the relevant claims involve added subject matter or lack support

Ratio Decidendi

Claim 1 of EP (UK) 3 197 206 is not entitled to priority because the priority document only discloses a fixed time allocation approach, whereas the claim covers situations where only transport parameters are fixed and not timing. The difference is materially wider and relates to a different concept, so it is not the same invention. Therefore, the 206 patent is invalid. The core inventive concept disclosed in the priority document is limited to fixed time allocation, and the claims must be supported by this disclosure. The VOIP overhead problem was not part of the common general knowledge at the priority date. Claim construction must reflect the specification as a whole, and 'fixed...

Court Disposition

EP (UK) 3 197 206 patent invalid for lack of priority; other claims subject to further technical analysis but not decided in this judgment.

Orders

  • Claim 1 of EP (UK) 3 197 206 is not entitled to priority and is invalid.
  • No further orders on other claims in this judgment.