NIPC Law

Photo   Maebmij   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Newey, Arnold and Birss)    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and other s [2023] EWCA Civ 758 (4 July 2023) This was an appeal by Applie Inc and two of its subsidiaries ("Apple") against the judgment of Mr Justice Meade in    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail Uk Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 561 (Pat) (15 March 2022) that European patents (UK)  2 187 549 B1  and 2 690 810 B1  were valid, essential to the LTE standard  and infringed by Apple.  The action before Mr Justice Meade was called "Trial D" because it was the last of a series of trials to determine whether a portfolio of patents that had been granted to Panasonic and subsequently assigned to the respondents were valid and essential to the LTE standard and whether they had been infringed.  To put this litigati...

Author  Dori   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Mellor)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and others   [[2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat) (16 June 2021) The first claimant is the proprietor of European patents  2,254,259 ("259") and  1,903 689 ("689") . They are part of a portfolio called the "MCP Pool!" which the claimants have promised to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  The defendants are manufacturers of 4G mobile phones.  The claimants argued that the defendants required their licence in order to comply with the LTE (4G) standard concerned with the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) to request uplink resources. The defendants denied that those patents were essential for compliance with the patent and pleaded that the patents were invalid for lack of novelty and an inventive step.  They also alleged that 689 was bad for ad...