Gemstar-Tv Guide International Inc & Ors v Virgin Media Ltd & Anor

Computer-implemented inventions remain excluded where their real contribution is merely data processing, presentation of information, or an abstractly improved user interface. A different screen display does not, without more, provide the required technical contribution. The relevant question is whether the invention produces a technical effect, such as improving the operation of the computer or causing a physical effect beyond the excluded subject matter.

For obviousness, the court must identify the skilled team, common general knowledge, the inventive concept, the differences from the prior art, and whether those differences would have been obvious. Commercial or aesthetic preferences do not ordinarily confer inventiveness where the technical implementation is routine.

Three patents concerning electronic programme guides were in issue. The claimants alleged infringement by the defendants’ television set-top box systems. The defendants denied infringement and sought revocation on grounds including excluded subject matter, lack of novelty and obviousness.

The patents concerned navigation between grid and single-channel programme listings, selection and filtering of favourite channels, and transfer of recorded programmes from digital storage to a secondary device. The court also considered proposed amendments and subsidiary infringement issues.

1. Single Channel patent. Applying the four-stage approach in Aerotel v Telco; Macrossan’s Application [2007] RPC 7, the claims were directed to a computer program and presentation of information. The alleged contribution was a different or improved user interface. That was an abstract description and did not identify a relevant technical effect. The claims were therefore excluded under section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977.
2. The alternative presentation-of-information analysis led to the same result. Moving from a grid to a single-channel list, selecting programme information and displaying it in a window involved presenting information through ordinary selection and display techniques. The programme-notes claims were also obvious over IBM, Gurney and SuperGuide. The patent would therefore have been revoked for obviousness even if it had been patentable.
3. Favorites patent. The filtering of programme data into user-selected favourite channels was a computer program and presentation of information without a relevant technical contribution. The patent and proposed amendment were accordingly invalid. Alternatively, SuperGuide anticipated all the claim integers. The court held that “available for viewing” meant at least the channels capable of being received, rather than only those channels physically receivable by the particular user. If valid, the defendants’ system would have infringed under the Improver v Remington [1990] FSR 181 questions.
4. Transfer patent. The invention produced a physical effect: initiating movement of programme data and recorded television content from one digital storage medium to another. It was therefore not a computer program as such or a presentation of information. Nevertheless, Toshiba disclosed the transfer of recorded programme content selected through an electronic programme guide. The patent, including the relevant dependent claims, lacked novelty. The proposed amendments were refused.
5. The patents were invalid and the infringement issues consequently did not arise. The judgment nevertheless recorded that, if valid, the defendants’ systems would have infringed most relevant claims, subject to the specific findings on programme notes and claims 5 and 14 of the Transfer patent.

First-instance judgment of the High Court (Chancery Division), Patents Court. No earlier decision or appeal is stated in the judgment.