Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Incorporation & Ors

“Data transmit power” in a patent claim may refer to the power of an individual data signal, rather than necessarily the transmitter’s total power. A predetermined period for transmitting a data block means the period within which that block is transmitted; in UMTS, this may be a transmission time interval. A technical standard must be construed as a whole, having regard to its mandatory requirements and surrounding provisions. Obviousness requires more than identifying a possible modification after working through complex prior art with hindsight. The patent was valid and had been infringed.

Philips alleged that ASUS and HTC mobile phones infringed European Patent (UK) No. 1 623 511, declared essential to relevant UMTS HSPA standards. The defendants disputed infringement and contended that the patent was obvious over the Physical Layer Standard for cdma2000 Release 0, C.S0002.

The principal issues were the construction of “data transmit power”, the meaning of “predetermined time period”, the interpretation of a disputed power-control paragraph in C.S0002, and whether the claims were obvious in light of that document.

1. Construction. “Data transmit power” was not confined to total transmit power. The specification distinguished data signals from control signals and described the powers of individual data signals being adjusted independently. The claim therefore covered reduction or increase in the power of an individual data signal, even where total transmitter power was not necessarily reduced.
2. “Predetermined time period” meant the period within which a single data block comprising information and parity check symbols was transmitted. In the UMTS context, the skilled person would understand this as a transmission time interval. The defendants’ broader construction would encompass ordinary TTI-by-TTI reconfiguration and was inconsistent with the specification.
3. C.S0002. Read in context, the disputed paragraph did not disclose an immediate reduction of transmission power on a selected code channel. It allowed the mobile station to maintain the existing power arrangement until a data-rate change or termination could occur, ordinarily at a frame boundary and within the specified time limit. The requirement to transmit at the commanded power on the Reverse Pilot Channel was subject to that time limit. The alternative interpretation would conflict with the prescribed channel-power ratios.
4. Obviousness. The defendants’ first case depended on the rejected construction of C.S0002. Their third case required the skilled person, working on UMTS Release 5, to select and develop an unclear passage in an older and technically inferior standard. That reasoning involved hindsight and did not establish the claimed combination. The absence of evidence that the disputed passage had been implemented in the alleged obvious manner supported the conclusion.
5. The amended claim 3 was infringed because the defendants’ phones complied with Release 6 of UMTS. The patent was valid and had been infringed.