NIPC Law

  Author  Interdigital  Licence   CC BY-SA 4.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Cour t (Mr Justice Mellor) Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 1577 (Pat) (28 June 2023 I discussed Mr Justice Mellor's judgment in Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) in Patents - Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd. and others   on 21 March 2023.  That had been a trial to determine the payments and other terms upon which patents that were essential for compliance with technical standards could be used.   At the end of my case note, I wrote: "This has been an extraordinarily difficult case note to write partly because the judgment is 225 pages long and partly because large chunks of it have been redacted, The judge has promised to publish a fuller version of his judgment in due course but even that...

Author Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100 ...

Author Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mt Justice Marcus Smith)  Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc and others  [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 Jan 2020) This was an application by Asustek Computer In c. and its subsidiaries, Asustek (UK) Ltd. and Asus Technology Pte Limited. for an order that they cease to be parties to proceedings to determine the terms upon which Koninklijke Philips NV ("Philips") should offer licences to use its patents that are essential for compliance with standards set by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"}.  The application first came before Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 27 Nov 2019.  In Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2019] EWHC 3463 (Pat) (27 Nov 2019) he decided to hear the application on 13 Dec 2019.  He dismissed the application on 17 Jan 2020 in Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and other s [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (1...

Author Goodtiming8871   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikipedia Cellular Network  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and other s [2020] EWHC 14 (Pat) (8 Jan 2020) This was a patent infringement claim by  Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL  against Huawei Technologies Co Ltd .,  ZTE Corporation  and their respective British subsidiaries.  The patents alleged to have been infringed are European patents (UK) 1 878 177  ("177"), 3 267 722  ("722") and 3 197 206  ("206"). Conversant had declared those patents to be essential to certain 3G and 4G standards. It argued that manufacturing, distributing or marketing items that met those standards without its licence would necessarily infringe the patents. The defendants contended that the patents were invalid on various grounds and denied that the patents were essential to t...

Basher Eyre /  Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings  /  CC BY-SA 2.0 Jane Lambert Patents Court ( Mr Justice Henry Carr) TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 562 (Pat) (11 March 2019) This was a patent infringement action.  The patents in suit were European patent number EP1453268 for multicarrier communication with variable overhead rate  and European patent number EP1792430 for CRC counter normalisation . The claimant alleged that these are standard-essential patents "SEPs") - that is to say, it is impossible to comply with ITU recommended telecommunications standards for the transmission of data without using those patents. The Parties The claimant describes itself as  " a technology development and licensing company aimed at providing needed solutions for the communications industry and beyond." The homepage of its website adds that its technical investments span nea...

Jane Lambert FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory". It refers to the terms upon which the owner of a patent for an invention that is essential to a standard ("standard essential patent" or "SEP") should license its use. In  Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017), the first and so far only case on FRAND in the United Kingdom, Mr Justice Birss explained what is meant by FRAND at para [83] of his judgment: "The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for example) that if it is a 4G phone, it will work with any 4G network. As a society we want the b...