High Court invalidates InterDigital 3G SEP
The England and Wales High Court has invalidated an InterDigital standard-essential patent (SEP) related to 3G technology, the latest high court ruling in the company’s ongoing dispute with Chinese tech company Lenovo.
The judgment was handed down by the patents court on Thursday, 6 January.
InterDigital had asked Lenovo to take a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence to its portfolio of telecom patents, which it held were essential to the 3G standard.
The patent-in-dispute in this case—EP 3,355,537 B1—relates to a feature of “enhanced uplink” which was introduced in the sixth release of the 3G standard.
InterDigital argued that the ‘537 patent is infringed by Lenovo devices that implement sections of three 3G telecom standards.
Lenovo contended that the standard does not require the patented method to be used, and argued that claim one of the ‘537 patent was invalid.
According to the judgment, the validity case was narrowed to anticipation or obviousness over a single piece of prior art called Filiatrault, which details a “marked up” version of the 3G technical specification.
Lenovo argued that this prior art disclosed claim 1 of the ‘537 patent, and was obvious over Filiatrault.
Throughout the course of expert evidence, InterDigital and Lenovo initially offered “diametrically opposed” views of what Filiatrault disclosed. According to Justice Mellor, Lenovo’s case on Filitrault “morphed” throughout the trial, with several arguments and pieces of evidence being dropped before the final judgment.
Eventually, Lenovo narrowed down its case on Filiatrault to four different bases; that Filiatrault “clearly and unambiguously” anticipates the patent, that claim 1 involved “no inventive step”, and that the “no inventive step” and anticipation arguments still stand even if InterDigital’s view of Filitrault was taken.
Mellor said: “Overall, I formed the distinct impression that Lenovo’s case on Filiatrault was driven by the knowledge of what their case required to get within the claim, rather than any objective assessment of what the text actually said when read by the notional skilled person at the priority date.”
However, Mellor highlighted an illustration in Lenovo’s expert witness’s testimony, referred to as DXX/14, that he said proved the anticipation of the ‘537 patent by Filiatrault.
DXX/14 details ways in which Filiatrault could “produce results required by integers of the patent”. According to the judgment, InterDigital’s only rebuke to this evidence was to “brush it aside”.
Accordingly, Mellor found the ‘537 patent invalid as anticipated by Filiatrault and therefore not infringed by Lenovo. He also ruled that the patent was not essential to the 3G standard.
This judgment follows another England and Wales High Court ruling in InterDigital’s SEP litigation against Lenovo in December.
In this judgment, the court dismissed a bid from InterDigital to issue an injunction againstLenovo for infringing its 4G SEP “at this stage”, as questions remained as to whether Lenovo’s “vague commitment” to FRAND terms should disqualify it from the ban.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
Taylor Swift’s copyright battle: Inspiration or infringement?
