HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc

The judgment determines infringement and validity of four technology patents. Patent claims must be construed through the eyes of the skilled person, read in context. For computer-program and information-presentation exclusions, the court must identify the actual contribution and ask whether it is wholly excluded subject matter. A technical effect is required, and ease of writing software or redistribution of data processing is insufficient. Obviousness requires a structured comparison with the prior art without hindsight. A patent may be obvious over common general knowledge alone, but the evidence must be assessed with care.

Apple alleged infringement by HTC of four patents concerning multi-touch event handling, touch-screen unlocking, photo management and multilingual text entry. HTC sought revocation of three patents and counterclaimed for revocation of the fourth. The proceedings were tried together and concerned construction, infringement, novelty, obviousness, added matter and excluded subject matter.

The central issues were whether HTC’s devices fell within the properly construed claims and whether the patents were valid in light of the cited prior art, common general knowledge and the statutory exclusions.

1. 948 patent. The claims required flags associated with each individual view and indicating properties of that particular view. They did not cover a flag set collectively at window or container level. “Selectively sending” meant selecting between sending touch events to the relevant software element and not sending them there. HTC’s Android 2.3 devices therefore did not infringe claim 1. Claim 1 was obvious over common general knowledge. Claim 2 survived the obviousness attack, but claims 1 and 2 were excluded as computer programs as such. Simplifying application programming was not a relevant technical effect outside the computer.
2. 022 patent. “Gesture” was used broadly and could include a class of gestures recognised by the device. A predefined displayed path required a specific stored route and a visible display of that route; displaying only start and end points was insufficient. The Arc mechanism infringed claims 1, 6 and 18. The Ring and Icon mechanisms did not infringe. Claims 1, 6, 9 and 18 were anticipated by Hyppönen. Claims 1 and 9 were obvious over Plaisant, and all claims were obvious over Neonode. The patent was not invalid for excluded subject matter because the improved switch had a technical effect outside the computer.
3. 868 patent. “Digital object” took its meaning from context and could include objects within a hierarchy. A previously hidden edge was an edge outside the display, not an edge whose visibility depended on the user’s knowledge. HTC’s Gallery application did not infringe. The claims were valid over Lira and were not excluded subject matter.
4. 859 patent. The multilingual alphabet requirement did not require separate, non-overlapping copies of common characters for each language. The claims covered functional separation. Claims 1, 2 and 4 were obvious over Arabic TDoc and the Hagenuk MT900. Claims 6 and 7 were also obvious. The patent was not excluded subject matter because its SMS capability produced an effect outside the computer.
5. The court directed counsel to draw an order reflecting those conclusions. It also criticised the unrealistic estimates of reading and trial time and noted that the circumstances warranted a pre-trial review.