Patent case law in 2023 generated many interesting issues on validity. The highlights of these are detailed below.
Priority and anticipation
The year began, in
Nokia v OnePlus (16 January 2023)[1], with a judgment looking at the interpretation of a novelty-only citation where only some of the matter contained in the prior art had the necessary priority. Oppo challenged the novelty of Nokia's patent on the basis of the prior art referred to as “Woo”, relying on s.2(3) PA. Woo therefore could only be relied on in relation for the purposes of s.2(3) in respect of matter that it contained which had an earlier priority date than that of the patent (which was the patent's filing date). The Woo priority document asserted as relevant was 'PD8', an LGE US provisional application. Woo contained material that was
not present in PD8. Patentee Nokia contended that such material informed the interpretation of the parts of Woo that Oppo
could rely on (and in a way favourable to Nokia). Meade J agreed.
The first patent infringement/validity judgment of Charlotte May KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, was handed down mid-year in
Ensygnia v Shell (26 June 2023)[2]. It concerned Ensygnia's patent to an information security method/system. Rejecting an anticipation challenge over prior art Schmidt, Charlotte May KC held that a disclosure that is capable of being carried out in a way which would infringe, but equally in a way that is not infringing, will not anticipate a claim.
[1] Nokia Technologies OY & Anr v OnePlus Limited Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 23 (Pat) (16 January 2023) Meade J
[2] Ensygnia IP Limited v Shell Oil Products Limited & Ors [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat) (26 June 2023) Charlotte May KC