Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings: (1) The 525 patent was not obvious over Shad, as the skilled person would not be led by Shad to implement the invention as claimed; (2) The 659 patent was obvious over Nortel, as omitting dedicated pilot bits was a technically obvious choice for the skilled person; (3) The 511 patent was not obvious over cdma2000, as the skilled person would not interpret the standard as teaching the claimed invention, and the patent was infringed. The appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Koninklijke Philips N.V.; 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
17 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (patents) / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
All appeals dismissed. High Court's orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Infringement, Technical Standards, Telecommunications
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Infringement Technical Standards Telecommunications

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

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents in suit (525, 659, 511) are valid or obvious over prior art
  2. 2 Whether the patents are infringed by the defendants' products
  3. 3 Proper construction of patent claims in light of technical standards

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings: (1) The 525 patent was not obvious over Shad, as the skilled person would not be led by Shad to implement the invention as claimed; (2) The 659 patent was obvious over Nortel, as omitting dedicated pilot bits was a technically obvious choice for the skilled person; (3) The 511 patent was not obvious over cdma2000, as the skilled person would not interpret the standard as teaching the claimed invention, and the patent was infringed. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed. High Court's orders upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal in relation to the 525 patent dismissed; patent held valid and not obvious.
  • Appeal in relation to the 659 patent dismissed; patent held obvious and invalid.