Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat) (23 May 2018)

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors [2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat) (23 May 2018)

The Patent, specifically claim 10, was found to be obvious over the prior art (Motorola 021 and Shad) and therefore invalid for lack of inventive step. The differences between the Patent and the prior art did not involve an inventive step and would have been obvious to the skilled person at the priority date.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1224 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV; Defendant: ASUSTEK COMPUTER INCORPORATION; Defendant: ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED; Defendant: ASUS TECHNOLOGY PTE. LTD; Defendant: HTC CORPORATION; Defendant: HTC EUROPE CO. LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / First Instance Judgment Following Technical Trial (trial A) on Validity
Outcome
Patent found invalid for obviousness; claim 10 revoked.
Legal Topics
Obviousness, Validity of Patent, Mobile Telecommunications Standards, Power Control in Radio Communications, Error Control in Arq/harq Systems
Intellectual Property Patents Obviousness Validity of Patent Mobile Telecommunications Standards Power Control in Radio Communications Error Control in Arq/harq Systems

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV

Claimant

ASUSTEK COMPUTER INCORPORATION

Defendant

ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

Defendant

ASUS TECHNOLOGY PTE. LTD

Defendant

HTC CORPORATION

Defendant

HTC EUROPE CO. LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / First Instance Judgment Following Technical Trial (trial A) on Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 1 440 525 is invalid for obviousness over Motorola 021 and Shad prior art documents
  2. 2 Whether claim 10 of the Patent involves an inventive step

Ratio Decidendi

The Patent, specifically claim 10, was found to be obvious over the prior art (Motorola 021 and Shad) and therefore invalid for lack of inventive step. The differences between the Patent and the prior art did not involve an inventive step and would have been obvious to the skilled person at the priority date.

Court Disposition

Patent found invalid for obviousness; claim 10 revoked.

Orders

  • Claim 10 of European Patent (UK) No. 1 440 525 is revoked for lack of inventive step.
  • No order as to proposed amendments, as they were not considered necessary.