Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. & Ors [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat) (10 July 2018)

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. & Ors [2018] EWHC 1732 (Pat) (10 July 2018)

The patent as proposed to be amended is invalid for obviousness over Nortel October, read with Nortel May, as the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to the skilled person in light of common general knowledge. The amendments to claim 1 are not ruled impermissible, but this is moot as the claim is found obvious. There is no issue of infringement as the patent is held invalid.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1732 (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
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Proceedings / Judgment After Technical Trial (trial B) on Validity of EP (uk) 1 685 659
Outcome
Patent as proposed to be amended held invalid for obviousness; claim 1 as amended is obvious over Nortel October and Nortel May.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Obviousness, Amendment of Claims, Mobile Telecommunications Standards, Standard Essential Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Obviousness Amendment of Claims Mobile Telecommunications Standards Standard Essential Patents

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 1 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 Proceedings / Judgment After Technical Trial (trial B) on Validity of EP (uk) 1 685 659

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether European Patent (UK) No. 1 685 659 as proposed to be amended is invalid for obviousness over Nortel October (R1-031074) read with Nortel May (R1-030546)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments to claim 1 add matter (intermediate generalisation)
  3. 3 Whether the patent as amended is essential to the UMTS standard

Ratio Decidendi

The patent as proposed to be amended is invalid for obviousness over Nortel October, read with Nortel May, as the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to the skilled person in light of common general knowledge. The amendments to claim 1 are not ruled impermissible, but this is moot as the claim is found obvious. There is no issue of infringement as the patent is held invalid.

Court Disposition

Patent as proposed to be amended held invalid for obviousness; claim 1 as amended is obvious over Nortel October and Nortel May.

Orders

  • Amendments to claim 1 allowed in principle but claim 1 as amended is invalid for obviousness; patent revoked as proposed to be amended.