Nokia takes hit in High Court priority-calls patent battle
Battle goes on, lawyers drool over war-chests
Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup/Recovery
The UK High Court ruling on Nokia's infringement of patents held by IPCom has both sides declaring victory, which is jolly friendly but not entirely accurate.
The latest chapter in the ongoing dispute, which goes back to 2007, falls largely in IPCom's favour in dismissing Nokia's various attempts to have the patent invalidated. The judge's ruling does agree that Nokia's more recent innovations bypass the patent, though IPCom reckons that also puts Nokia handsets outside the 3G (UMTS) standard.
The patent in question relates to prioritising users, enabling a class of users (such as the emergency services, or members of the Illuminati, or any other group) to gain priority access to the network. IPCom claims that it's impossible to make a 3G phone without infringing its patent, Nokia says that's simply untrue, and both companies agree that the battle is far from over.
The patent in question - UK patent number 1 841 268 - was filed by Bosch back when it cared about telephony. IPCom GmbH (not to be confused with IP.Com) bought the patent and started trying to extract an estimated €12bn from Nokia in licence fees.
Since then Nokia has complained, unsuccessfully, to the European Commission, and last year the UK High Court ruled two contested patents were invalid. But IPCom successfully amended one of the patents, making it less broad in its claims, and now the High Court has decided that Nokia has been in breach of that patent.
Whether Nokia is still in breach is more open to question. Nokia handsets originally used a mechanism for priority which is termed A1 for reference: that has now been declared in breach of the patent.
For the N96 the company tweaked the system, terming the tweak A2: A2 has also been declared in breach. These days Nokia has a range of solutions, dubbed B, C, D, E, F, and G, which Mr Justice Floyd (presiding) has specifically ruled as not infringing on the IPCom patent.
IPCom also attempted to get the judge to rule that its patent was essential for phones complying with the UMTS (3G) standard - something the judge declined to do as it wasn't pertinent to his decision on the validity of the patent.
That's not stopped IPCom claiming that its patent is essential to the 3G standard, a claim Nokia explicitly rejects. IPCom also says it will be seeking an injunction on Nokia phones being sold in the UK, though if Nokia's claims that the current handsets don't use A1 or A2 are true then it seems unlikely that such an injunction would be granted.
Nokia says it will also appeal against the decision, specifically the ruling that the patent is valid. During this case Nokia tried to argue that the patent wasn't obvious, that it was a natural development of existing standards, that in modifying the patent IPCom added matter broadening its the cover, and that the patent was insufficiently detailed to be valid anyway.
Those arguments were rejected by Mr Floyd, but that won't stop Nokia repeating them on appeal.
Both sides seem well funded, which seems increasingly important in patent cases these days. So it's likely this one will run for a few years more before we see only one side able to claim victory. ®
COMMENTS
Er... what?
So, you can now file a patent that is very broad, so broad as to be found to be invalid. Then at a later date amend that patent to specifically cover devices that have been on sale for a considerable amount of time. And it is now a valid patent which you can use to sue the makers of the 'infringing' devices?
Logic error - please reinstall legal system!
you miss the point
> It's neither novel nor inventive
For the last 15+ years the patent system purpose is to not to spur innovation or protect inventors/IP but simply to provide billable hours for scum sucking lawyers. Funny how that works when most of those who make the laws practice/have practice law. The ultimate leech vested interest in society that tax every other profession.
what is bothersome...
What bothers me is that companies are allowed to submit patents for using the functionality of a standard in a way which that standard is meant to be used. See the many XML patents (mainly in the US), this one in the story - the GSM specs have included prioritisation of calls since day 1 - and so on. It's neither novel nor inventive.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
