Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors. v Apple Retail UK Limited & Ors.

For a product claim requiring apparatus to be “adapted to” perform a function, the question is whether it is suitable to perform that function without reprogramming. The function need not be operating, or even implemented by the network, at the relevant time. A logical code-multiplexing structure is a set of network rules governing the allocation of cyclic shifts and spreading codes; it need not be stored in the mobile itself.

In assessing obviousness, provisional standards material and a document proposing further investigation may be relevant but do not necessarily provide a sufficient direction to the invention. The skilled person must not be led through an artificial, hindsight-driven sequence of steps. For added matter, a claim’s express features cannot be combined with common general knowledge to create an unmentioned disclosure.

The claimants alleged infringement and essentiality of two LTE-related patents, EP (UK) 2 187 549 B1 and EP (UK) 2 690 810 B1. The patents concerned multiplexing ACK/NACK and CQI control signals on the PUCCH using cyclic shifts and orthogonal spreading codes.

The defendants challenged essentiality and infringement, advanced anticipation and obviousness cases based principally on Panasonic and Nokia technical documents, and opposed unconditional amendments for lack of clarity and added matter. The central issues were the construction of “code multiplexing structure”, the meaning of “adapted to”, the significance of CCE-based implicit signalling, obviousness, and the allowability of the amendments.

1. Construction. A code-multiplexing structure was an abstract logical structure created by the network. It comprised the rules governing the permitted combinations of cyclic shifts and orthogonal spreading codes. The mobile had to be adapted to operate in accordance with those rules, but did not need to contain the complete structure.
2. “Adapted to”. The relevant product claims required suitability without reprogramming. It was unnecessary for the relevant structure to be implemented in the United Kingdom, or for the mobile actually to transmit using it. Apple’s phones contained the necessary logic and could operate with the claimed structure if the appropriate signalling were received. The patents were therefore essential and infringed.
3. CCE association. The additional feature of claim 1 of 810 required the CCE itself to be used for implicit signalling of the PUCCH resource. It did not extend to signalling by the downlink control-channel index. This distinction followed from the language and teaching of the patent and from the specific nature of the Kobe agreement.
4. Validity. The Panasonic document was a high-level proposal to investigate possible arrangements. It did not disclose, and did not make obvious, the combination of three spreading codes for data, a mixed resource block, and an unused cyclic shift after a CQI. Nokia disclosed mixed resource blocks, but did not disclose or make obvious the claimed three-code, two-cyclic-shift structure or the unused cyclic shift. Its reference to the Kobe agreement concerned the control-channel index, not the CCE itself. The attacks therefore failed.
5. The alternative Nokia case also failed. The complete set of Nokia allocation rules did not become a claimed two-cyclic-shift mesh merely because fewer users were scheduled at a particular time. The additional CQI parameters did not ensure a completely unused cyclic shift.
6. Amendments. The amendments were clear. The application disclosed the use of three length-four codes in the first and second embodiments. The added-matter attacks therefore failed. The patents, as amended, remained valid.