Apple infringed mobile patents, rules UK appeals court
Ruling upholds March 2022 decision that paved the way for hearings relating to the parties’ FRAND dispute | Telecommunications company prevailed in its arguments that its patents were essential to certain standards.
Apple infringed patents when applying mobile technology in its iPhones, according to the Court of Appeal in a much-anticipated decision delivered yesterday, July 4, in London.
The latest development in the long-running dispute marks a win for Optis Cellular Technology and affirms a March 2022 ruling by the High Court of England and Wales.
At the heart of dispute are two patents deemed essential to the 4G LTE mobile telephony standard: EP (UK) 2 187 549, entitled Radio communication device and response signal diffusion method, and EP (UK) 2 690 810, entitled, Radio communication device and response signal spreading method.
Essential to 4G
The dispute emerged more than four years ago when Optis sued the tech giant, claiming that Apple had infringed eight of its patents covering technology essential to certain standards including 4G.
Apple countered that they were not essential, and that this technology was not used in the UK.
It also said that the patents were invalid on the grounds of obviousness over two pieces of prior art from Nokia and Panasonic, and opposed amends proposed by Optis on the basis that they lacked clarity.
But following a trial in January 2022, Justice Richard Meade held that the patents were both valid as amended—essential to the relevant standard—and had been infringed by Apple’s mobile telephones.
Insufficient evidence
The tech giant appealed in May, but Justice Colin Birss dismissed its arguments yesterday, writing that the lower court was “right to reject (Apple’s) argument for non-infringement” and in finding that the patents-in-suit were essential.
He concluded by noting that: “the argument flounders in this court because the appellant was unable to identify any evidence to support a finding of obviousness had those premises been satisfied.
“The most that could be said was that there was evidence from the experts that it was technically possible to do what would have been necessary to put the allegedly obvious step into practice. That is not enough.”
Justice Richard Arnold and Justice Guy Newry both concurred with Birss’ findings.
FRAND disputes
The March ruling delivered in 2022 had paved the way for a series of hearings related to the parties’ licensing disagreements.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal affirmed an earlier High Court ruling by concluding that Apple should not be allowed to wait to see the terms of a court-ordered fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence before committing to the licence.
Lawyers at the time told WIPR that the judgment was an important one for future disputes involving FRAND, and would have far-reaching implications for patent owners and licensees.
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
