HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC 2768 (Ch) (09 September 2013)

Application refused because HTC raised amendments late, causing significant difficulty for Nokia to address them before trial. HTC could have raised pleas earlier without prejudice to Nokia. The balance of factors, including prejudice and clarity, weighed against permitting the amendments.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2013] EWHC 2768 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: HTC Corporation; Defendant: Nokia Corporation
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 09 September 2013
Procedural Posture: Patent Infringement and Invalidity / Application to Amend Grounds of Invalidity Prior to Trial
Outcome: Application to amend grounds of invalidity refused
Legal Topics: Patent Amendment, Insufficiency, Trial Procedure, Late Amendments

Intellectual Property Patent Law Patent Amendment Insufficiency Trial Procedure Late Amendments

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

HTC Corporation

Claimant

Nokia Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Invalidity / Application to Amend Grounds of Invalidity Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether HTC may amend grounds of invalidity to add new insufficiency pleas against Nokia patents EP (UK) 0 998 024 and EP (UK) 1 133 831 shortly before trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to amend grounds of invalidity refused

Orders

HTC's application to amend grounds of invalidity in respect of both patents is denied

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.