UK litigation gets complicated
InterDigital Fights To Restore Wireless Patent In Appeal
By Sophia Dourou · Listen to article
Law360, London (January 31, 2023, 7:23 PM GMT) -- Technology giant InterDigital asked an appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate one of its wireless technology patents, arguing an earlier decision that the standard-essential patent lacks novelty was based on too narrow of an interpretation.
Counsel for InterDigital told a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal that one of its standard-essential patents for 3G wireless technology did indeed contain an invention and was infringed by Chinese tech giant Lenovo.
Adrian Speck KC, representing the U.S. research and development company, told the court that the High Court judge hearing the case used the wrong construction of the patent's claims when assessing whether it was obvious given the prior art in the field.
The patent covers the way data blocks of specified sizes are transmitted by mobile phones.
InterDigital is seeking to overturn an April 2022 High Court decision holding that its patent was invalid and tossing out its infringement suit against Lenovo.
Speck said that the judge was wrong in his approach to an earlier 2005 invention known as Filiatrault, which aims to improve the performance of 3G mobile transmissions to reduce delays. The prior art did not anticipate the patent-in-suit, which included an apparatus to ensure that the technology was fully functional, Speck argued.
"It couldn't be clearer that the judge proceeding on the basis that this is a requirement and gave its absence in Filiatrault as a reason it didn't anticipate," Speck said, outlining his argument that the judge included two constructions in his analysis, despite his ruling that the patent was anticipated.
But James Abrahams KC, representing Lenovo, told the panel that the judge correctly read the prior art, urging the court to dismiss the appeal as a result.
"The main issue at trial…was the dispute of what the Filiatrault prior art described, what it meant in relation to the common general knowledge," Abrahams said. "Our case on Filiatrault is that it actually disclosed the detailed process that InterDigital now wants to write into [its claim.]"
Abrahams rejected Lenovo's arguments that the earlier judge had included two different interpretations in his judgment, arguing it would be "impossible" for him to forget. But he added that even if the appeals court did accept InterDigital's new construction of the patent, it couldn't conclude that Lenovo had infringed the patent because InterDigital didn't raise that argument at the High Court.
InterDigital and Lenovo have been in talks since 2009 to license the U.S. company's patent portfolio covering 3G and 4G standards in a number of different jurisdictions including the U.K., China and U.S. with no success, according to a related July 2021 decision.
The High Court ruled at that time that Lenovo had infringed another valid standard-essential patent of InterDigital's for 4G wireless technology. Lenovo is currently appealing that decision.
Separately, on Tuesday the High Court upheld the validity of yet another InterDigital telecommunication patent and ruled it essential to the 3G technology standard.
That dispute marks one of a series focusing on determining what FRAND – fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory – licensing terms would be for the telecommunications patents. It follows a landmark decision by the U.K. Supreme Court in 2020 that England's courts have the authority to set global rates for use of standard-essential patents.
The appeal before Justices Kim Lewison, Sarah Asplin and Richard Arnold is set to continue on Wednesday.
The patent-in-suit is European (UK) Patent No. 3,355,537.
Lenovo is represented by James Abrahams KC of 8 New Square and Kyra Nezami of 11 South Square, instructed by Kirkland and Ellis International LLP.
InterDigital is represented by Adrian Speck KC of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG (UK) 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.
--Additional reporting by Alex Baldwin, Lucia Osborne-Crowley, Silvia Martelli, Tiffany Hu and Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Alex Hubbard.
