Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors

Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors

Claims 19 (and 18) of EP (UK) 1 878 177 and claims 2 (and 1) of EP (UK) 3 267 722 lack novelty over Bestak. Claims 20 and 35 of 177 and claims 3, 13, and 14 of 722 are novel and inventive. EP (UK) 3 197 206 is not entitled to priority and is invalid. The patents are essential to SPS in LTE and HS-SCCH-less operation in UMTS. Added matter and lack of support objections are rejected.

Parties
Claimant: Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l; First Defendant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd; Second Defendant: Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd; Third Defendant: ZTE Corporation; Fourth Defendant: ZTE (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims 19 (and 18) of 177 and claims 2 (and 1) of 722 invalid for lack of novelty; claims 20 and 35 of 177 and claims 3, 13, and 14 of 722 valid and essential; EP (UK) 3 197 206 invalid and revoked; Conversant successful overall.
Legal Topics
Validity, Novelty, Inventive Step, Added Matter, Priority, Essentiality, Infringement
Intellectual Property Patents Validity Novelty Inventive Step Added Matter Priority Essentiality +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l

Claimant

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

First Defendant

Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd

Second Defendant

ZTE Corporation

Third Defendant

ZTE (UK) Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the patents EP (UK) 1 878 177, EP (UK) 3 267 722, and EP (UK) 3 197 206 are valid and essential to telecommunications standards
  2. 2 Whether the claims are novel and involve an inventive step over the Bestak prior art
  3. 3 Whether the amendments add matter or lack support

Ratio Decidendi

Claims 19 (and 18) of EP (UK) 1 878 177 and claims 2 (and 1) of EP (UK) 3 267 722 lack novelty over Bestak. Claims 20 and 35 of 177 and claims 3, 13, and 14 of 722 are novel and inventive. EP (UK) 3 197 206 is not entitled to priority and is invalid. The patents are essential to SPS in LTE and HS-SCCH-less operation in UMTS. Added matter and lack of support objections are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims 19 (and 18) of 177 and claims 2 (and 1) of 722 invalid for lack of novelty; claims 20 and 35 of 177 and claims 3, 13, and 14 of 722 valid and essential; EP (UK) 3 197 206 invalid and revoked; Conversant successful overall.

Orders

  • EP (UK) 3 197 206 revoked.
  • Claims 19 (and 18) of 177 and claims 2 (and 1) of 722 declared invalid.