05 April 2017
London
Reporter: Barney Dixon

Unwired Planet wins twice in one week


The UK High Court has ruled in favour of Unwired Planet in litigation against Huawei involving standard essential patents (SEPs).

Unwired Planet’s case revolved around its standard essential patents for mobile telecommunications, which it has committed to licensing under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

The court ruled that if Huawei doesn’t agree to enter into a licensing agreement with Unwired for its patent portfolio, it could be enjoined from selling its mobile phones in the UK.

Gary Moss, head of EIP Legal, which represented Unwired in its UK case, said: “As well as being a significant decision, and validation for Unwired Planet’s licensing approach, this decision will be of great interest to the telecoms sector in general.”

“Until now there has been a view that even if the infringing party is successfully sued, at the end of the day they would have to pay no more than the royalty rate they would have had to pay anyway, and only for the countries in which they were sued. That gave an incentive for implementers to hold out in the hope of achieving a more favourable royalty rate.”

He added: “Today’s judgement confirms that this need not be the case, and that the English court will take a commercially sensible, ‘real-world’ approach to such issues.”

Meanwhile, in another win for Unwired Planet, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied Google’s petition for an en banc rehearing in its covered business method review against Unwired Planet’s patent.

Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written to decision to invalidate Unwired Planet’s business method patent.

The court ruled that the board’s application of “incidental to” and “complementary to” from a US Patent and Trademark Office policy statement instead of the statutory definition “rendered superfluous” the limits Congress placed on the definition of a covered business method patent.

The America Invents Act describes a CBM patent as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions”.

Yesterday (4 April), the Federal Circuit dismissed a rehearing as unnecessary because the en banc court is set to “revisit the scope of an analogous bar on judicial review from inter partes proceedings” in Wi-Fi One v Broadcom Corp.

More Europe news
The latest news from IPPro Patents
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Universities should be more flexible
18 August 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Perceived barriers could potentially be torn down by the Aarhus University’s proposed ‘patent free’ research zone, but academia should not be wedded to a single solution, according to Sean Jauss, partner at Mewburn Ellis
Aarhus University champions ‘patent free’ research zone
10 August 2017 | Aarhus | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Aarhus University, along with leading Danish industrial companies including Lego, has created the Open Science platform in a move away from the patenting ‘rat race’
Apple paid $1.7 billion to Nokia
31 July 2017 | Espoo | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Apple paid $1.7 billion up-front to Nokia as part of a patent settlement in May
PatSnap partners with GreyB
20 July 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Intellectual property analytics company PatSnap has entered into a strategic alliance with technology consulting and research firm GreyB
Top German court backs compulsory licence
14 July 2017 | Karlsruhe | Reporter: Mark Dugdale
A German court was right to grant a compulsory licence to a patent for a HIV drug, the country’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled
UK Supreme Court tweaks equivalent infringement
13 July 2017 | London | Reporter: Mark Dugdale
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Actavis v Eli Lilly put more emphasis on considering the invention in the patent when assessing whether a competitor infringes, according to Hogan Lovells
The UK Supreme Court has upheld the validity of and adjudged as infringed Eli Lilly’s vitamin regimen patent for Alimta