Qualcomm Incorporated (A Delaware Corporation) v Nokia Corporation (A Finnish Company)

Patent claims must be construed objectively through the eyes of the skilled person, using the common general knowledge but not confidential material revealing the patentee’s subjective intention. An apparatus claim expressed as being “for” a function ordinarily means suitable for that function, without requiring present performance or physical modification. A patent may cover a logical channel and technically irregular intervals where the claim requires periodicity, provided that a recognisable slot cycle exists. Contributory infringement under section 60(2) turns on whether the supplied means are suitable and intended for putting the invention into effect; complexity of the technical facts is no defence where the relevant facts are known. Claims 1 of the 324 Patent were invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 of the 482 Patent were invalid for obviousness, with claims 9 and 11 also insufficient.

Qualcomm sued Nokia for infringement of two telecommunications patents concerning mobile-telephone power saving and transmitter-power control. Nokia denied infringement and counterclaimed for revocation.

The trial was limited to technical issues of infringement, validity and essentiality. The first patent, the 324 Patent, concerned intermittent monitoring of a message channel by a mobile station. The second, the 482 Patent, concerned correction and limitation of reverse-link transmitter power using open- and closed-loop control. The central questions included claim construction, novelty, inventive step, insufficiency, added matter, contributory infringement and technical essentiality.

1. Construction. Per Floyd J, patent claims are construed objectively through the eyes of the skilled person. Confidential internal documents cannot be used to establish subjective intention or alter the objective meaning of the claims. An apparatus “for” a function ordinarily means suitable for that function. Supplying power does not modify an apparatus, but physical modification will prima facie take it outside that description. The relevant question is the suitability of the apparatus as it stands.
2. 324 Patent. The claim was capable of covering a logical message channel. Real-time periodicity was not required, although the skilled person must be able to recognise a slot cycle. Minor variations in the number and spacing of slots did not avoid the claim. The slot cycle could be influenced by the base station, provided that the mobile participated by supplying the index number. A plurality of possible slot cycles was not required. The claim required a message for the mobile in each assigned slot, subject to the disclosed MORE_PAGES qualification, but capability rather than actual operation sufficed for the apparatus claim.
3. Cognito and Nippon Telegraph anticipated claim 1 as granted. NEC rendered the claim obvious. The proposed amendment did not save the claim. The attacks based on insufficiency, added matter and priority failed. GSM/GPRS with PCCCH implemented would have infringed, because logical-channel irregularity and the need for external enabling changes did not avoid a capable apparatus combination.
4. 482 Patent. The claims were not confined to digital implementations. “Transmit power value” could include an estimate or proxy, and a maximum gain setting need not be hard-wired. A closed-loop power-control circuit meant circuitry suitable for processing commands based on received signal strength at the base station; it did not need to be dedicated circuitry. Claims 1 and 9 were obvious over IS-95, the Wheatley documents and Soliman. Claims 2 and 11 were also obvious because power limitation was an evident implementation of the standard’s requirement. Claims 9 and 11 were insufficient because their calibration language extended beyond the disclosed linearisation function.
5. The 482 Patent was not invalid for added matter on the pleaded grounds. Had it been valid, claims 1, 2 and 9 would have been infringed, but the patent was not technically essential to the relevant standard.