InterDigital Kicks Off Trial Against Lenovo Over Its 4G IP
By Bonnie Eslinger
Law360, London (March 3, 2021, 6:32 PM GMT) -- InterDigital launched the first of a series of trials against Lenovo on Wednesday, accusing the Chinese tech giant of unlawfully using five of the mobile technology research company's standard-essential patents for 4G.
During his opening submission in the High Court proceeding, InterDigital's lawyer, Douglas Campbell QC of 8 New Square, took aim at Lenovo's telecommunication's expert. Campbell said his opinion on the type of person who would be considered "skilled" in the field of the Long-Term Evolution wireless broadband communication standard set the bar too high.
Lenovo has denied that the patent at issue in this first trial is essential and has counterclaimed to revoke the patent as invalid in light of two prior inventions. In such cases, the court considers what a hypothetical skilled industry person might have known in order to determine whether the claimed invention could have been made based on the knowledge from the prior discoveries.
Lenovo's expert, Campbell said, contends that the skilled person would have participated in standard-setting meetings through an organization known as the 3rd Generation Partnership Project — or 3GPP— an umbrella group for standards organizations that develop protocols for mobile telecommunications.
Judge Richard Hacon asked how that assertion applied in the case before the court and the notion of the "common general knowledge" — or CGK — held by the skilled person.
"One side says it's part of the CGK because the skilled person would have attended the meetings where the other side says if they wouldn't have attended the meetings they wouldn't have known that," Judge Hacon said. "What is that in this context?"
InterDigital's expert said the skill level of the person put forward by Lenovo's expert holds too much "inventiveness," since the typical person who attends the standard-setting meetings are inventors, Campbell said.
Judge Hacon suggested that because the hypothetical skilled person doesn't exist in real life, "that sort of frees one up to impose any kind of unrealistic restrictions on their knowledge."
After Campbell said he didn't see any part of Lenovo's validity case or the infringement argument that turned on the question of the skilled person, Lenovo's lawyer jumped into the discussion.
Lenovo's lawyer, Thomas Hinchliffe QC of Three New Square, pointed out that in written submissions to the court, InterDigital suggested that the issue of the skilled person might apply to whether certain 3GPP Technical Reports were common general knowledge.
Judge Hacon asked what in the technical reports might relate to the concern, asking for a "quick soundbite" as to the information in the reports where there's dispute about if it's common general knowledge.
Hinchliffe said it relates to four technical reports on LTE that existed at the time of the priority date for InterDigital's patent.
"They contain the current assumptions as to LTE," Hinchcliffe said. "Our position is they represent the current thinking for those working to standardize LTE and so would have been common general knowledge."
The trial is scheduled to conclude on March 11, with a second technical trial slated for June 2021. A third trial, listed for January, is for the court to determine "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" license terms for InterDigital's patented technology. Three other technical trials will follow.
InterDigital sought to add a seventh trial to its infringement litigation against Lenovo, but that request was rejected by a different judge in December. That judge said it would be too disruptive to add separate proceedings on whether the computer giant is unwilling to let the English courts set global licensing rates.
The U.S. mobile technology research and development company unsuccessfully argued to the court that holding an earlier trial on Lenovo's willingness to accept the English court's rates for use of its patents might cut out the need for a separate trial to determine the FRAND terms under rules set by the the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, or ETSI.
Lenovo's lawyer countered that his client shouldn't have to commit to global terms set by the English court since there are also proceedings over these patents in China and the U.S.
InterDigital won permission in October to add a pleading to its case, which claims Lenovo has not engaged "constructively" in licensing negotiations as required by ETSI.
The patents in suit are European (UK) Patent Nos. 2,485,558, 3,355,537, 2,421,318, 2,363,008 and 2,557,714.
InterDigital is Douglas Campbell of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG.
Lenovo is represented by Thomas Hinchliffe QC of Three New Square, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis (International) LLP.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corp. and others v. Lenovo Group Ltd. and others, case number HP-2019-000032, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
--Editing by Joe Millis.
AI
