Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 172 (Pat) (31 January 2023)

Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 172 (Pat) (31 January 2023)

The patent is valid. The proper construction of claim 1 confines 'in response to' to the new trigger condition described in the patent, not the broader construction advanced by Lenovo. On this construction, the prior art (PMS and Kim) does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. The identification of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 172 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: InterDigital Technology Corporation; Claimant: InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.; Claimant: InterDigital, Inc.; Claimant: InterDigital Holdings, Inc.; Defendant: Lenovo Group Limited; Defendant: Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Defendant: Lenovo Technology (United Kingdom) Limited; Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC; Defendant: Motorola Mobility UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Patent held valid and infringed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Obviousness, Anticipation, Claim Construction, Telecommunications Standards
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Patent Infringement Obviousness Anticipation Claim Construction Telecommunications Standards

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

InterDigital Technology Corporation

Claimant

InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.

Claimant

InterDigital, Inc.

Claimant

InterDigital Holdings, Inc.

Claimant

Lenovo Group Limited

Defendant

Lenovo (United States) Inc.

Defendant

Lenovo Technology (United Kingdom) Limited

Defendant

Motorola Mobility LLC

Defendant

Motorola Mobility UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP(UK) 2 421 318 B1 is valid over the prior art (PMS and Kim)
  2. 2 Proper construction of claim 1, specifically the meaning of 'in response to'
  3. 3 Whether the patent is essential to the UMTS (3G) standard

Ratio Decidendi

The patent is valid. The proper construction of claim 1 confines 'in response to' to the new trigger condition described in the patent, not the broader construction advanced by Lenovo. On this construction, the prior art (PMS and Kim) does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention. The identification of the transmission blocking problem and the specific solution provided by the patent were not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art. The patent is essential to the UMTS standard and is infringed by the defendants' products.

Court Disposition

Patent held valid and infringed

Orders

  • Patent EP(UK) 2 421 318 B1 is valid over the PMS and Kim prior art
  • Defendants' products infringe the patent