Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Retail Uk Ltd and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Hon Mr Justice Floyd,Mr Justice Floyd
Judgment Date07 March 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] EWHC 468 (Pat)
CourtChancery Division (Patents Court)
Docket NumberCase No: HC11C02180
Date07 March 2013

[2013] EWHC 468 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Rolls Building London EC4A1NL

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Floyd

Case No: HC11C02180

Between
Samsung Electronics Co. Limited
Claimant
and
(1) Apple Retail Uk Limited
(2) Apple Sales International
Defendants

Mark Vanhegan QC and Brian Nicholson (instructed by Bristows) for the Claimant

Simon Thorley QC, Guy BurkillQC and Jeremy Heald (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 10-12, 14 and 17 December 2012

Approved Judgment on the 404 Patent

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

The Hon Mr Justice Floyd Mr Justice Floyd

Paragraph of judgment

Introduction

1

The 404 patent and the issues

3

Technical background

8

The skilled addressee

48

The witnesses on 404

49

Common general knowledge

55

The disclosure of the 404 patent

56

The claims of 404

70

Issues of construction

71

Entitlement to priority

76

Infringement

104

Validity

105

Obviousness

106

Conclusions

147

Introduction

1

In this action and counterclaim, the claimant Samsung Electronics Co. Limited ("Samsung") alleges infringement of three patents by the defendants Apple Retail UK Limited and Apple Sales International Limited (together "Apple"). The alleged infringements include certain Apple 3G(HSUPA)-enabled devices, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and the iPad2 3G. The trial of the action fell into two quite distinct parts, the first part concerned with two of the patents and the second part with the third patent. There was virtually no overlap between the patents concerned in the first part and that involved in the second. I deal with the first two patents in a separate judgment: [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat). This judgment deals with the third patent only. That patent is European Patent UK No. 1,714,404 ("404"). Apple denies infringement and counterclaims for revocation.

2

The respective cases on this patent were advanced by Mr Mark Vanhegan QC and Mr Brian Nicholson for Samsung and by Mr Simon Thorley QC, Mr Guy Burkill QC and Mr Jeremy Heald for Apple.

The 404 patent and the issues

3

The 404 patent is entitled "Apparatus and method for allocating OVSF codes and I/Q channels for reducing peak to average power ratio for transmitting data via enhanced uplink dedicated channels in WCDMA systems". I will explain the technical terms used in the title in the next section of the judgment. For present purposes it is enough to say that the invention is broadly concerned with the structuring of individual data streams which are transmitted simultaneously on the same frequency range from a mobile device to a base station.

4

On its face, the patent claims priority from no less than 10 priority documents. However Samsung do not rely on any claim to priority earlier than the fourth priority document. The question of entitlement to priority is important because Samsung accept that the patent is invalid if the date of the fourth priority document, 17 June 2004, is not kept.

5

Samsung have proposed an amendment to the claims. There is a small remaining issue about the allowability of the amendments. Samsung invited me to consider only the proposed amended claim. The amendment is therefore proposed unconditionally.

6

Samsung's case of infringement is based on its allegation that the claimed invention was incorporated into the 3GPP UMTS telecommunications standard and that all Apple's accused devices comply with that standard. Apple did not challenge Samsung's technical evidence on infringement. In its opening skeleton Apple merely reserved their position on infringement, in case Samsung should adopt a construction of the claims which they had not anticipated. In the event, no issue on infringement emerged at the trial.

7

Apple allege that the claims are obvious over a prior proposal by Ericsson. In addition they allege that the claims cannot credibly deliver the advantage ascribed to them in the specification, an attack which they describe as " Agrevo obviousness" after the EPO case of that name. Alternatively, Apple contend that the claims are invalid for insufficiency on a similar basis. There is also an added matter attack, which largely follows the priority issue.

Technical background

8

The general architecture of a mobile communications system has been described in a number of judgments. The following aspects need to be explained further here. I acknowledge the assistance of both sides' expert reports in preparing this section of my judgment.

The history of the relevant standards

9

In order to understand the issues which arise for decision in this case, it is necessary to recite some of the history of the development of the relevant telecommunications standards. That is because the invention is concerned in part with the way in which one allocates channels defined in earlier standards and versions of the standards. These channels are referred to as "legacy channels".

10

Cellular radio telephone communications systems have developed through a number of generations, from the original analogue (1G) systems, via the GSM system (2G) to the 3GPP UMTS (3G) system.

11

GSM is the most widely deployed cellular system in the world. It uses a channel structure based on splitting the radio spectrum into frequency slots and time slots. The base station receives signals from different mobile handsets in these different frequency and time slots (see below), and can accordingly extract the signals from different mobile handsets for onward distribution through the network.

12

UMTS is another widely deployed cellular system. It stands for Universal Mobile Telecommunication System. UMTS uses a channel structure which is not based on splitting the radio spectrum into frequency and time slots for different users. The different signals are differentiated using a system known as code division multiple access (CDMA). This system involves the use of codes to differentiate signals. On the uplink, i.e. from the mobile to the base station 1, each mobile applies a code to the signal. The receiver in the base station uses the same code to extract the signal. The same occurs in the opposite direction on the downlink. Even though all of the signals on a given cell are transmitted using the same frequency range, the individual signals can be extracted at either end using the different codes to distinguish them. Thus, the acronym WCDMA used in the title of the 404 patent stands for Wideband Code Division Multiple Access.

13

The 2G and 3G standards were not immutable, but would be updated by Releases which add improvements to the basic system mandated by the standard. As new, enhanced functionality is added to mobile phones, it is essential that new phones are able to continue to obtain services based on the old or "unenhanced" service. Thus the mobile will be able to obtain both the enhanced service from base stations which have been updated and so called legacy services from base stations which have not. Equally base stations which have been updated will need to be able to offer the legacy service to older mobiles which do not have the enhanced functionality. Allowing for legacy services to continue operation in this way is called backward compatibility.

14

3G was originally standardised by a document entitled "Release 99"in 2000. In contrast to the predominantly voice-based 2G system, 3G offered multiple services such as video and data in addition to voice. In particular, 3G offered a packet data service.

15

In September 2002, 3GPP Release 5 was published. This added an additional, enhanced data service on the downlink (from base station to mobile) known as the High Speed Downlink Packet Access ("HSDPA"). Release 5 did not make any alteration to packet access on the uplink because, at that date, it was thought that the main user activity, such as browsing the internet or downloading material, would result in higher demand on the downlink rather than the uplink. This assumption turned out to be misplaced.

16

The subsequently appreciated need for improved capacity on the uplink was met by one of the more important upgrades to the 3G UMTS system. This upgrade related to the provision of the High Speed Uplink Packet Access system ("HSUPA"). HSUPA was an enhancement to the way in which data (as opposed to voice) is transmitted on the uplink between the mobile and the base station. HSUPA was under development at the date I have to consider in May/June 2004. It is this enhanced uplink data service which gives rise to the need for enhanced uplink dedicated transport channels (EUDCH) which are the subject of the patent.

17

With rare exceptions, later releases of the standards have preserved all the features of earlier releases, whilst adding new features in a backward compatible manner.

Channelization

18

Channelization refers to the ability to send multiple data streams simultaneously over a single physical radio link. For example, a user may hold a voice conversation while at the

same time receiving e-mail, or surfing the Internet. The process of combining data streams in this way is known as multiplexing. Common approaches to multiplexing are:

i) Frequency multiplexing: separate channels are sent on separate frequencies. When one tunes a dial on a radio, one is changing the frequency so as to receive a different channel.

ii) Time multiplexing: separate channels are sent at different times. In this system the channel is divided into different time slots. Individual time slots are allocated to different streams of data. The receiver knows to look in particular time slots to find the data for that channel.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Samsung V Apple: English High Court Decision Today – Three Samsung Patents Invalid
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 14 March 2013
    ...not been found invalid. Read copies of the decisions: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Anor (on 404 patent) [2013] EWHC 468 (Pat) Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Anor (on 726 and 675 patents) [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat) The content of this article is ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT