HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) (10 July 2013)

HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) (10 July 2013)

The claims of the 865 patent require a 'microcontroller' which, on proper construction, means a single chip containing a CPU, memory (RAM and ROM), and I/O interfaces. The asserted claims are not entitled to the claimed priority date, and are obvious or lack novelty over the cited prior art. The HTC devices do not infringe as they do not have 'microcontrollers' as properly construed. The claims are not unpatentable subject matter under s1(2) of the 1977 Act. The counterclaim for infringement fails.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: HTC Corporation; Defendant: Gemalto S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims of the 865 patent are invalid and not infringed. Counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Claim Construction, Obviousness, Novelty, Priority, FRAND Licensing
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Claim Construction Obviousness Novelty Priority +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HTC Corporation

Claimant

Gemalto S. A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 15, and 18 of EP (UK) 0 932 865 are valid and/or infringed
  2. 2 Whether the HTC devices infringe the asserted claims
  3. 3 Whether the claims are entitled to the claimed priority date

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of the 865 patent require a 'microcontroller' which, on proper construction, means a single chip containing a CPU, memory (RAM and ROM), and I/O interfaces. The asserted claims are not entitled to the claimed priority date, and are obvious or lack novelty over the cited prior art. The HTC devices do not infringe as they do not have 'microcontrollers' as properly construed. The claims are not unpatentable subject matter under s1(2) of the 1977 Act. The counterclaim for infringement fails.

Court Disposition

Claims of the 865 patent are invalid and not infringed. Counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • HTC's claim for revocation of the 865 patent succeeds.
  • Gemalto's counterclaim for infringement is dismissed.