Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v ZTE (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 818 (Pat) (23 March 2015)

Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v ZTE (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 818 (Pat) (23 March 2015)

ZTE's original PPD was inadequate as it was conclusory and lacked necessary explanation, but Ms. Peng's witness statement now forms part of the product description. Vringo must specify why this is still inadequate if it wishes to challenge it further. ZTE is ordered to give focused disclosure regarding offers of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 818 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.; Defendant: ZTE (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Adequacy of Product and Process Description (ppd) and Related Disclosure
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Product and Process Description, Standard Essential Patents, Disclosure, Patent Infringement, Telecommunications Standards
Intellectual Property Patent Law Product and Process Description Standard Essential Patents Disclosure Patent Infringement 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.

Claimant

ZTE (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement Action / Interlocutory Application Regarding Adequacy of Product and Process Description (ppd) and Related Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ZTE's Product and Process Description (PPD) is adequate under legal principles for patent litigation
  2. 2 Whether further disclosure is required regarding ZTE's products and offers relating to packet switched location services
  3. 3 Whether Vringo is entitled to further information to assess infringement under standards other than TS 43.059

Ratio Decidendi

ZTE's original PPD was inadequate as it was conclusory and lacked necessary explanation, but Ms. Peng's witness statement now forms part of the product description. Vringo must specify why this is still inadequate if it wishes to challenge it further. ZTE is ordered to give focused disclosure regarding offers of equipment supporting packet switched location services as raised by Vringo's evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Ms. Peng's witness statement to be treated as part of ZTE's product description.
  • Vringo to specify in detail any remaining inadequacies in the product description if it wishes to pursue the issue.