UK High Court backs Apple in Samsung patent dispute

A judge at England’s High Court has invalidated three Samsung patents and dismissed patent infringement claims brought by the company against Californian smartphone maker Apple.

In its complaint, Samsung alleged that Apple’s iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPad 2 3G models infringed three of its European patents covering data coding and transmitting, and was seeking royalties from sales of the allegedly infringing models as compensation.

Apple denied infringement and filed a counterclaim against Samsung.

In a ruling published earlier today, judge Justice Floyd sided with Apple and invalidated Samsung’s patents, finding that they were not entitled to the priority dates claimed in Samsung’s applications.

Floyd also said that even if the patents were entitled to the priority dates claimed, two of them would have been invalid for obviousness, but added that if they had been valid, Apple would have been liable for infringement.

Floyd’s ruling only applies in the UK. It brings the number of failed standards-essential patent claims Samsung has brought against Apple to 25 and is the second time Samsung has lost a case over its European patent EP1005726 (the first was in Mannheim, Germany).

The decision was announced one week after Samsung lost its patent battle with Apple in Japan: on February 28, Tokyo’s district court rejected the Korean smartphone maker’s request to ban sales of Apple iPads and iPhones that allegedly infringe its patents and said that Samsung had not worked hard enough to negotiate a settlement with Apple before bringing the case to court.

Apple declined to comment on today’s ruling. A spokesperson for Samsung said the company is disappointed with the court’s decision and is considering whether to appeal against it.

“For decades, we heavily invested in pioneering the development of technological innovations in the mobile industry, which have been constantly reflected in our products. We will continue to take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights,” she added.

Kathleen Fox Murphy, senior counsel at Taylor Wessing in London, said it is unclear what effect the ruling will have on Apple and Samsung’s patent wars worldwide, but said there is nothing in the judgement to suggest that Samsung wouldn’t be granted a hearing if it chooses to appeal against Floyd’s decision.

Fox Murphy also noted the case is a little unusual in that the priority dates for all three of the patents were lost. “ Often a judge is deciding if the patent is valid or not based on prior art which is pre-priority date. In this case, because Samsung lost its priority dates, intervening art between the priority and filing dates invalidated the patents,” she said.

“What companies should take from this is that there needs to be a strong basis for the priority date claimed,” she added.