Legal News

Should Apple have anticipated the outcome of second Optis trial? (Optis v Apple)

Published on: 07 July 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Should Apple have anticipated the outcome of second Optis trial? (Optis v Apple)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Validity of the patent: anticipation
  • Anticipation (including by equivalence) and obviousness over InterDigtial:
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • No IPR
  • Assurance
  • Reliance and detriment
  • More...

Article summary

IP analysis: ‘Trial B’ of the ongoing multi-patent litigation and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) dispute between Optis Cellular and Apple followed a familiar path to last year’s ‘Trial A’ ([2020] EWHC 2746 (Pat)). Interestingly, EP 2 229 744 B1 (Patent) had already been held valid and infringed in proceedings between Unwired Planet and Huawei by the High Court [2015] EWHC 3366 (Pat) and Court of Appeal [2017] EWCA Civ 266. Shortly in advance of this trial, Apple conceded infringement and essentiality. Mr Justice Meade’s task was therefore to: (i) re-examine the validity of the Patent, which claimed a mechanism for radio link control polling for continuous transmission within a wireless communication network, in light of new prior art submitted by Apple, as well as (ii) determine whether Apple could be successful with its pleaded proprietary estoppel defences. In Meade J substantial written judgment, the judge held that Optis’ patent was valid, and that Apple’s defences on the grounds of proprietary estoppel both failed. Written by Caitlin Heard, partner and Chris Dixon, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents