HTC Corporation v Gemalto S.A., Court of Appeal, 22 October 2014,  EWCA Civ 1335, Laws LJ, Floyd LJ, Vos LJ
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Birss J that claim 3 of Gemalto’s patent (EP (UK) 0 932 865, relating to using a high level programming language with a smart card or microcontroller) was valid and not infringed by HTC’s marketing of a variety of smart phones and a tablet computer. The appeal concerned one of the three patents considered at first instance. The principal issue which Gemalto appealed was Birss J’s construction of the term "microcontroller", Gemalto claiming it was too narrow. However, although the Court of Appeal held that Birss J had erred in his construction of that term, it held that his construction was too wide and, therefore, upheld the finding that HTC’s devices did not infringe. Another issue examined by the Court of Appeal was HTC’s appeal of the decision that claim 3 of the patent was entitled to priority.