HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA

HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA

The asserted claims of EP (UK) 0 932 865 are not infringed by HTC devices because the devices do not contain a 'microcontroller' as properly construed. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 18 are not entitled to priority and are obvious over the intervening Cyberflex prior art. Claims 1 and 15 also lack novelty over the Caron article. Claim 3 is entitled to priority and is not obvious over the cited prior art. None of the claims are excluded as computer programs as such. The asserted claims of EP (UK) 0 829 062 are invalid for lack of novelty over GSM 11. PQ. If valid, the HTC smartphones would infringe.

Parties
Claimant: HTC Corporation; Defendant: Gemalto S.A.; Defendant: Gemalto N.V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims for infringement dismissed; patents found invalid in part.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Claim Construction, Priority Entitlement, Obviousness, Novelty, Patentable Subject Matter
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Claim Construction Priority Entitlement 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HTC Corporation

Claimant

Gemalto S.A.

Defendant

Gemalto N.V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Infringement / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents EP (UK) 0 932 865 and EP (UK) 0 829 062 are valid and/or infringed by HTC devices
  2. 2 Proper construction of key claim terms including 'microcontroller'
  3. 3 Entitlement to priority for the asserted claims

Ratio Decidendi

The asserted claims of EP (UK) 0 932 865 are not infringed by HTC devices because the devices do not contain a 'microcontroller' as properly construed. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 18 are not entitled to priority and are obvious over the intervening Cyberflex prior art. Claims 1 and 15 also lack novelty over the Caron article. Claim 3 is entitled to priority and is not obvious over the cited prior art. None of the claims are excluded as computer programs as such. The asserted claims of EP (UK) 0 829 062 are invalid for lack of novelty over GSM 11. PQ. If valid, the HTC smartphones would infringe.

Court Disposition

Claims for infringement dismissed; patents found invalid in part.

Orders

  • HTC's devices do not infringe EP (UK) 0 932 865.
  • Claims 1, 8, 15, and 18 of EP (UK) 0 932 865 are invalid for lack of inventive step and/or novelty.