- 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
- Reliance and detriment
- Loss of process
- Case details
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’ ( 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  EWHC 3366 (Pat) and Court of Appeal  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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial