Starsight Telecast Inc and United Video Properties Inc v Virgin Media Limited, Virgin Media Payments Limited and Tivo Inc, Patents Court, 26 March 2014,  EWHC 828 (Pat), Arnold J
The Opposition Division had held that the patent as granted contained added subject matter and upheld the patent in amended form, but that decision was suspended as both sides had appealed. Therefore, Arnold J considered the patent in both the form as granted and as amended.
Arnold J concluded, in summary: (i) the granted 234 patent was invalid for added matter and obviousness, but if it were valid one type of STB would have infringed; (ii) the amended 234 patent was invalid for obviousness, but even if it were valid the STBs would not have infringed; and (iii) the other patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness, but if it were valid the STBs would not have infringed. He noted that if this decision was appealed, consideration should be given to asking the Technical Board of Appeal to expedite the EPO appeal proceedings and also to ensuring that this appeal would not be heard until after the Board’s decision and reasons were available.
Points of interest in Arnold J’s judgment include the issue of added matter, and his comments on product and process descriptions (PPDs), primers and the parties’ expert witnesses.