SSH Communications Security Corporation v Sony Mobile Communications AB & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2237 (11 October 2018)

SSH Communications Security Corporation v Sony Mobile Communications AB & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 2237 (11 October 2018)

The Court of Appeal held that the NAT Minutes and Guidelines, read together, clearly and unmistakeably disclosed the method of maintaining NAT mappings by sending keepalive packets before timeout, as claimed in claim 1. The additional feature of claim 3 was not disclosed but was obvious to the skilled person. The deputy judge made no error in law or fact, and the patent claims lacked novelty or were obvious over the prior art.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 2237
Parties
Appellant: SSH Communications Security Corporation; Respondents: Sony Mobile Communications AB and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Obviousness, Network Address Translation (nat), Keepalive Packets, Internet Protocols
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Validity Novelty Obviousness Network Address Translation (nat) Keepalive Packets Internet Protocols

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SSH Communications Security Corporation

Appellant

Sony Mobile Communications AB and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patent claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by the NAT Minutes and Guidelines
  2. 2 Whether the deputy judge erred in his interpretation of the prior art and common general knowledge
  3. 3 Whether the invention as claimed was novel and involved an inventive step

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the NAT Minutes and Guidelines, read together, clearly and unmistakeably disclosed the method of maintaining NAT mappings by sending keepalive packets before timeout, as claimed in claim 1. The additional feature of claim 3 was not disclosed but was obvious to the skilled person. The deputy judge made no error in law or fact, and the patent claims lacked novelty or were obvious over the prior art.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed