EPLAW Patent Blog

UK - Nokia v IPCom

Nokia GmbH v IPCom GmbH & Co. KG, High Court, 20 February 2012, Case No. HC09C04868, Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 225 (Pat)

In the latest of a long line of patent cases between IPCom and Nokia, Mr Justice Floyd held that IPCom’s proposed amendments to its patent be allowed in order to preserve validity but that none of the claims of the amended patent was in any event essential to the UMTS, GSM or LTD mobile telecommunications standards. The case was relatively unusual in that neither infringement nor validity of the patent as granted were directly in issue. Rather IPCom sought to maintain validity based on three alternative sets of amendments, whilst Nokia sought a declaration that the patent as granted or as proposed to be amended was not essential to various standards, implying that it was possible to sell a device which conformed to that standard without infringing the patent.

UK - Nokia v. IPCom (GSM/UMTS)

Nokia GmbH v. IPCom GmbH & Co. KG and IPCom GmbH & CO. KG v. Nokia UK Limited and Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation), Invalidity and infringement proceedings (GSM, UMTS), High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, The Hon Mr Justice Floyd, London, UK, 18 January 2010, Case No. [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat)

These proceedings concern two patents in the name of IPCom. IPCom sued Nokia for infringement of both patents.  The proceedings are part of a larger battle between the parties.  Licensing and infringement litigation commenced in Germany between a Nokia company and IPCom when licensing negotiations between the companies broke down.

The two patents in this case relate to cellular mobile phone technology. European Patent (UK) No. 540 808 (“808”), is concerned with the way in which the mobile phone synchronises itself with the transmissions it receives from the base station.  The second of the patents, European Patent (UK) No. 1 186 189 (“189”), is concerned with management of the right of the mobile phone to connect to the network.

The court concludes that the 808 Patent is invalid for obviousness over the GSM recommendations, and also over both Baier and D’Avella when combined with common general knowledge.  Had it been valid it would have been infringed by the 6300.  808 is not essential to the GSM standard. The 189 patent is invalid. Had it been valid it would have been infringed by both the N96 and the New Device. 189 is essential to the operation of UMTS. 

Read the judgment (in English) here.