Tag Archives: nokia


The once powerful mobile phone companies BlackBerry and Nokia are in the headlines again, not for their new technological developments but because of their legal battle.

The Valentine’s Day card for Nokia was in the form of complaint entailing 11 items that Blackberry did not like about it. The complaint listed out the 11 patents of Blackberry infringed by Nokia. The company has not commanded an injunctive relief, i.e. asking Nokia to stop using the patents; instead it has asked for compensation for the unauthorized usage of the said patents. Let’s have a brief overview of the case.


Headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Blackberry Limited, formerly known as Research In Motion (RIM), was founded by two engineering students, Mike Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin in 1984. It is a multi-national wireless telecommunications software and mobile hardware company, currently chaired by John S. Chen. It had taken over the smart phone market with its flagship QWERTY keypad range of mobile phones. Blackberry uses its own operating system, and had recently entered the Android arena of smart phones. It had ruled the gadget market with its classy, easy and appealing technology and applications for over two decades until its plunge with the launch of Apple iPhone and other Android phones. It had also developed key innovations that underlie 3G and 4G mobile communication technologies, such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE), including LTE Advanced and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) technologies, and Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (UMTS). Blackberry’s contribution to innovation, including investment in research and development has exceeded a total of $ 5.5 billion, and has protected the technical innovations by seeking patents from the US office.


In a paper mill in 1865, Nokia was created by Fredrik Idestam and Leo Mechelin in South-west Finland. It is a multinational communications and information technology company, considered to be one of the most important Fortune 500 organizations. Nokia launched Mobira Cityman in 1987, the world’s first handheld phone. The most famous Nokia’s first GSM handset, Nokia 1101, was a swift hit in the market when it was launched in 1992. The partnership of Nokia with Microsoft It is presently chaired by Rajeev Suri. With the ingression of new companies, Nokia has tumbled down.

Connecting the dots:

Rockstar Consortium Inc. (also Rockstar Bidco) was formed in 2012 to settle and negotiate patent licensing acquired from the bankrupt multinational telecommunications and data networking equipment manufacturer Nortel. It comprises of five members: Apple Inc. Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony.

Rockstar Consortium bought Nortel’s IP in 2011 for $ 4.5 Billion, and created a special-purpose-patent-assertion company to use them. The IP consisted of over 6000 patents covering 4G wireless innovations and a range of technologies. Nokia had also made an attempt to buy Nortel’s IP in 2009, but was unable to obtain them due to the latter’s bankruptcy proceedings. In 2012, Rockstar Consortium was also listed, by the Business Insider, as the 3rd most fearsome (out of 8) “patent trolls” in the industry.

Rockstar initiated a lawsuit against 8 companies in 2013, including Google, Smasung, and other Android phone makers. When the IP was purchased by it, Google anticipated this scenario. The complaint encompassed 6 patents, all from the same patent family. The case was settled on confidential terms.


Blackberry sues Nokia: Case name:

Blackberry Limited   [Plaintiff]


Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and Network Holdings USA Inc., and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC                 [Defendants]

Case number and Court:

17- 155, United States District Court for the District of Delware (Wilmington). This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants under the Delware Long-Arm Statue, 10 Del. Code § 3014, and the U.S. Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The action for patent infringement has arisen under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. § 271.


Blackberry has filed this complaint against Nokia due to the latter’s unauthorized usage of the former’s contributions to innovation technologies. Blackberry holds the following 11 patents, known as “Asserted Patents” (enforcement of patent by the owner who believes that his patent has been infringed) which are the subject matter of the case:

  1. ‘418 Patent: United States Patent No. 6,996,418 is entitled “Apparatus and Method for PFDM Data Communications” and was issued on February 6, 2006.
  2. ‘246 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,254,246 is entitled “Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems and was issued on August 28, 2012.
  3. ‘090 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,494,090 is entitled “Detecting the Number of Transmit Antennas in a Base Station” and was issued on July 23, 2013.
  4. ‘305 Patent: United States Patent No. 7,529,305 is entitled “Combination of Space-Time Coding and Spatial Multiplexing, and the Use of Orthogonal Transformation in Space-Time Coding” and was issued on May 5, 2009.
  5. ‘433 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,861,433 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on October 14, 2014.
  6. ‘697 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,426,697 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on August 23, 2016.
  7. ‘772 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,253,772 is entitled “System and Method for Multi-Carrier Network Operation” and was issued on February 2, 2016.
  8. ‘192 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,897,192 is entitled “System and Method for Discontinuous Reception Control Start Time” and was issued on November 25, 2014.
  9. ‘202 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,125,202 is entitled “Multi-Beam Cellular Communication System” and was issued on September 1, 2015.
  10. ‘683 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,243,683 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for State/Mode Transitioning” and was issued on August 14, 2012.
  11. ‘829 Patent: United States Patent No. 8, 644,829 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Signaling Release Cause Indication in a UMTS Network” and was issued on February 4, 2014.

Blackberry is the owner of all rights, title and interest in the aforementioned patents, with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce them, including the right to recover for past infringement. Blackberry and RIM have publicly declared to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), an industry organization that promulgates wireless telecommunication standards specified by 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), that the Asserted Patents may be or may become essential to LTE Standards and/or UMTS/UTRAN Standards [practising wireless telecommunication standards], and the declaration is in public domain, accessible on a search engine provided and maintained by ETSI (https://ipr.etsi.org/).

Nokia has taken action intending to cause others to directly infringe the patents, including by selling or offering for sale the Infringing Products to third parties in the United States while expressly promoting these products’ capability to practice the LTE Standards, knowing that using these products to practice the LTE Standards would constitute direct infringement of the ’418 patent.

Infringing Products:

The 3GPP specifications that enumerate LTE and UMTS/UTRAN Standards are and have been implemented in Nokia’s products like Nokia’s Flexi line of products, alone or in combination with Nokia software such as the Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite (collectively, the “Infringing Products”).  The Infringing Products include, without limitation, the following products, alone or in combination:  Nokia’s Flexi Multiradio and Multiradio 10 base stations, the Flexi Zone (small cell) Micro and Pico base stations, Femtocell base stations, Flexi Network Server, the Flexi Radio Antenna System, Nokia radio network controllers, and Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite.


Blackberry alleges that Nokia had knowledge of the existence of the applications for or the family members of the Asserted Patents as it had used the same in various patent prosecutions of its own.

  • The family members of the ‘246 patent were cited in an international search report and were also cited by Nokia and by an examiner during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘090 patent was cited in an international search report, and was also cited by Nokia during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘772 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of parent application of the ‘192 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of at least one patent application that was assigned to Alcatel-Lucent, which was acquired by Nokia. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of the priority application of the ‘202 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of applications that were assigned to Alcatel entities, which were acquired by Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications and those of Alcatel-Lucent that the asserted ’246, ’090, ’772, ’192, and ’202 patents covered LTE features used by their Infringing Products.
  • The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘683 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘829 patent was cited by Nokia during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
  • Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications that the asserted ‘683 and ‘829 patents covered UMTS/UTRAN features used by their Infringing Products.
  • By April 10, 2012, RIM had acquired the ’418, ’246, and ’305 patents and had caused to be recorded at the USPTO the assignments of ownership of these patents to RIM. Currently, the assignment of these patents to Blackberry has been recorded in the USPTO. Nokia has knowledge of the same through its due diligence of Nortel U.S. patents.

Infringement Claims:

Nokia knowingly and intentionally encourages and aids at least its end-users to directly infringe the asserted patents. Nokia has been, and currently is, an active inducer of infringement of these patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). It has been willfully blind to the existence of the patents. Nokia’s infringement has been, and continues to be, willful and deliberate, and has caused substantial damage to BlackBerry. Nokia developed, commercialized, demonstrated, and/or tested the Infringing Products despite its evaluation and knowledge of the Nortel patent portfolio, including the application that led to the issuance of some patents, and its knowledge of family members of a few of the 11 patents from prosecution of its own patent applications. In spite of Nokia’s knowledge of the patents, Nokia has continued making, using, offering for sale/lease, and/or selling or leasing in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Infringing Products that are compliant with the LTE Standards, without a license from BlackBerry.  Nokia’s egregious infringement behavior warrants an award of enhanced damages.

Prayer for relief:

Blackberry prays that the Court:

  • Render judgment declaring that Nokia directly infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributed to the infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Award BlackBerry damages adequate to compensate it for Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Award an ongoing royalty for Nokia’s ongoing infringement of the asserted patents.
  • Render judgment declaring Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents willful and deliberate, and award BlackBerry enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
  • Award BlackBerry pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent allowed under the law, as well as BlackBerry’s costs and disbursements.
  • Enter an order finding that this is an exceptional case and awarding Blackberry its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
  • Award any other relief as the Court deems fit.


Both the companies are having a downfall in their sales. Blackberry has stopped making smart phones, and Nokia has had a huge decrease in sales of its one-of-a-kind Lumia phones, manufactured in collaboration with Microsoft. Blackberry has started licensing its software and brand assets to others so that its name in the market continues. Also, it pledged to license these patents as they form essential elements for mobile telecommunication standard.  As is evident from the prayer of the complaint, no injunction has been claimed for. Instead, Blackberry has claimed damages and royalty for the unauthorized use of its patents. This is a smart move by the smart phone maker to commercialize on its leftover assets. Nokia has not responded to this complaint as of now, and is looking into the matter, as per a news article. Nokia’s counter is acutely awaited.

About the Author :

Ms. Aditi Tiwari, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Views expressed in this article are solely of the intern and do not reflect the views of either of any of the employees or employers.Queries regarding this may be directed to swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com



Microsoft’s Acquisition of Nokia

This is one of the most interesting and important news in technology sector. In case you missed it, the story is: Microsoft and Nokia announced on September 3 that Microsoft would be buying Nokia’s handset business and licensing various patents for about $7 billion.

Many industry experts have already started debating about Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s handset division for about $7 billion and whether this purchase can build a strong advertising network. The debate can go further about advantages and profits Microsoft can have over its competitors by buying patents of Nokia. It is to be remembered that the patents go along with the company’s global handset engineering, manufacturing, sales and distribution business. These patents from Nokia are going to play a vital role in the market.

While much of the talk surrounding Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s mobile business surrounds the inevitability of end-to-end mobile business models, there are different points which are to be discussed from Microsoft’s acquisition. Along with Nokia’s mobile business Microsoft got a 10-year license to a massive treasure trove of mobile patents.

By this latest acquisition, we may expect observing two major changes in the market: one, how the ongoing mobile patent war between Microsoft and Google may take an interesting turn, second: what can be the impact on android patent royalties.

Nokia’s patent portfolio:

Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm and Alcatel-Lucent collectively control the majority of patents in the 2G and 3G wireless space supporting mobile handsets, many of which have been the “crux” of ongoing patent wars. Nokia, LG and Qualcomm alone own more than 43% of all seminal, or strong, patents or also called as standard essential patents.

Of all those standard essential patents related to mobile technology, patents related to data transfer rates will become the most advantageous. Nokia owns 213 communication patents; 272 related to data transfer rates; 163 related to positioning; 196 related to power management; 381 related to security; and 138 related to services.

As for Nokia, the company accelerated its IP investments between 1997 and 2005. The company tops the list among 2G and 3G patent owners by owning 26% of all standard essential patents. Nokia is way more ahead of its other competitors, by having 55% more standard essential patents than Qualcomm, which comes in at No. 2. The analysis was done to understand the quality of the portfolio.

Microsoft and Nokia already had a cross-patent-licensing deal in place, dating back to the two companies’ original agreement via which Nokia went all-in on Windows Phone in 2011. In the recent deal announced on Sept. 3, Microsoft said it would acquire bout 8,500 design patents from Nokia, the physical features distinguishing each mobile device. Microsoft is also licensing on a non-exclusive basis for $2.7 billion another set of 30,000 “utility” patents which Nokia will continue to own. This group of patents encompasses Nokia’s patents except for the Nokia Siemens Network (NSN) telecom infrastructure patents, and will be used by Microsoft across a variety of products and devices, not just phones. Microsoft officials have said they’ll be converting the 10-year license it obtained to a perpetual license after the original 10-year license is up. This will mean that Microsoft will have patent coverage for this body of patents for the life of all of those patents.

In a press conference, Microsoft Executive Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith said that, “One of the reasons we focused so much on securing this license, one of the reasons it has a high price tag, is because of the very substantial value of Nokia’s patent portfolio. When we look at the industry, and in particular, when we look at patents that are relevant to wireless connectivity using the CDMA standard or the GSM standard or 3G or 4G technologies, we really believe that Nokia has one of the two most valuable portfolios in the industry. The other is Qualcomm’s.”

Nokia has more than 60 patent licenses with various third parties, company officials have said, and Microsoft gets the protections and benefits of all of these. Qualcomm, with which Nokia negotiated a 15-year license that went into effect in 2008 is one of them. Qualcomm obtained a number of Nokia patents as part of this deal. Microsoft “now benefit(s) from that arrangement,” said Smith.

Florian Mueller, an intellectual property activist turned analyst tells us in a blog post as: “Nokia is also conveying rights under its agreements with IBM, Motorola Mobility, and Motorola Solutions. It means that a Motorola-Nokia license deal struck a few years ago apparently goes with Nokia’s wireless devices business. As a result, Google’s Motorola can’t sue Microsoft’s future smartphone business for the remaining term of that agreement, and Motorola’s patent portfolio gets less valuable by the day.”

Given that Microsoft got licenses to use Nokia’s patents, and not the patents themselves, Microsoft likely saw the patents as a way to hedge against would-be litigants and lower its own IP costs associated with Windows phones.

Impact of acquisition on android patents:

Microsoft earns royalty from sales of both Nokia and android devices. Comparatively, royalty money for each device of Nokia is much higher to royalty money of each android based device. Even though royalty amount of each android based device is lower, manufacturing and shipping volumes of android based devices are much higher than that of windows based phone devices, which earns huge amount of royalty to Microsoft. By combining Nokia, Microsoft can earn more profit but still it is small compared to its near-term potential to FUD Android distributors into license agreements.

While Microsoft talked up Nokia’s device distribution, sales networks and other benefits, it was quick to call out the “valuable patent benefits” it derives from the deal. Microsoft walks through the cost benefits it receives from additional patent rights with Qualcomm and others that it receives through the deal.

Microsoft is not the only one who is on the gaining side. Nokia too has earned some brownie points out of this deal. Historically speaking, Nokia has not licensed its patents, but instead preferred to use them to defend against competitors. With the sale of its handset business to Microsoft, however, all bets are off, as Nokia spokesperson Mark Durrant acknowledged: “Once we no longer have our own mobile devices business, following the close of the (Microsoft) transaction, we would be able to explore licensing some of those technologies.”

Microsoft has intimated that 80% of Android phones are covered by Microsoft’s patent royalty agreements. Buying Nokia’s patents outright may have given Microsoft an even stronger hand in convincing Android manufacturers to cough up patent royalties, but having Nokia do the same is even better. Microsoft has effectively imposed double taxation on Android licensees, all the while shifting the dirty work to Nokia.

Mueller further stated in his blog post, in 2011, Microsoft and Samsung signed an Android-centric patent license deal, via which Samsung pays Microsoft. That deal will extend to the wireless device business that Microsoft will own after the Nokia deal closes without requiring any additional payments. However, that Samsung may still need a license to cover “various Nokia non-standard-essential patents.””

The deal between two industry biggies has earned its own pros and cons, landing a huge amount of money and showing plenty of signs for happening of patent related deals. But the deal shouldn’t affect the customer value.

About the Author: Mr. Nagaraj Mannikeri, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at: Nagaraj@khuranaandkhurana.com

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw.

Nokia & IPCOM

The claimant, Nokia Corporation, seeks revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 841 268 (“the patent” or “268”) which belongs to the defendant IPCom. This action is yet another stage in the litigation which is pending in a number of jurisdictions in relation to the mobile telephony patent portfolio which IPCom purchased from Robert Bosch GmbH. Earlier this year, the company lost an appeal over another patent claim. The company was seeking to claim EUR12 billion (US$16 billion) from Nokia based on the calculation of 5 percent of Nokia’s mobile phone sales in countries covered by the patents, or EUR 600 million (US$840 million) a year over 20 years.

Nokia had been seeking the revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 841 268 (‘268 Patent) belonging to IPCom. In addition, by counterclaim, IPCom alleges infringement of 268 in respect of a number of mobile phones sold by Nokia. Nokia denies infringement. The ‘268 patent is itself a patent which was divided out of European Patent No. 1 186 189 (“the parent patent”). Like the parent patent, ‘268 is concerned with managing the problem of contention on a random access radio channel uplink between mobile phones and a network base station.

Regarding the validity of the patent, Judge held that “It is of course always necessary, at the end, to take a step back and ask whether the claim embodies an inventive step, both in the case of the attacks based on specific publications and in the case of the common general knowledge. Nokia submitted that the invention achieved nothing in terms of functionality as compared with, say, IS-95. That is correct as far as it goes, but it does not follow that IPCom’s approach to achieving that functionality is obvious. It is entirely possible that invention lies in achieving the same functionality in a different way. In the end I was not satisfied that any of Nokia’s four starting points rendered IPCom’s solution obvious. It follows that I reject all the attacks on the 268 patent based on obviousness”


There is a Product and Process Description for each of 14 types of Nokia device. The High Court held that the ‘268 Patent was infringed by two Nokia devices: “the A1″and “the A2″,but Nokia were granted a declaration of non-infringement in respect of Nokia’s devices, labeled B1,B2,C1,C2,D1,D2,E1,E2,F1,F2,G1 and G2.

High court clearly analysed the infringement by mapping the features of devices A1 and A2 of Nokia with the Independent claim 1 of ‘268. Independent claim1 of ‘268 patent is broken as follows:

[A] Mobile station for operation in a UMTS mobile radio network

[B] in which multiple user classes are distinguished

characterised in that the mobile station is arranged

[C] to read a user class from a SIM card

[D] to receive access threshold value bits and access class information over a broadcast control channel

[E] to determine an access threshold value from the access threshold value bits

[F] to use the access class information relevant for the user class to determine whether

[G] the mobile station is permitted to access a random access channel, for example RACH, independent of the received access threshold value bits

[H] or whether the access permission for the random access channel, for example RACH, is determined on the basis of an evaluation of the access threshold value.


  • The Nokia device described as A1 operates as follows. The mobile is designed to receive two parameters of relevance. These are the dynamic persistence level, N, and the AC to ASC mapping information.
  • Any device operating in accordance with the A1 method must be a member of at least one Access Class (AC). There are 10 normal ACs, numbered from 0-9. Every device must be a member of one of those normal ACs and the number of the particular AC to which the device belongs is stored on its SIM card. There are another 5 special Access Classes (11-15) designated for use by special groups of users such as emergency services and network staff. All access classes may be barred at any time by the network.
  • The next thing which it is necessary to understand is how the A1 selects an Access Service Class (“ASC”) which it will use for its access attempt. These ASCs are different from the AC stored on the SIM.. The transmitted data includes an element entitled “AC-to-ASC mapping”. This allocates each AC to an ASC. There are 8 ASCs numbered from 0-7. The mapping is carried out by the device reading the information element (IE) in the System Information Block appropriate to its AC. The way this is done is set out in Table 2 taken from the A1 Product and Process Description. ACs 0-9 look at the first IE in the block, 10 the second, 11 the third and so on.

  • Depending on which ASC has been allocated by the mapping process, the device works out a “persistence value” known as P(i), (not the same as the dynamic persistence level, N, sent by the network). The way this is done is set out in Table 1 taken from the A1 Product and Process Description.

  •  It can be seen that there is a difference between ASC 0 and the other ASCs. If a device is in ASC 0 the device automatically sets its persistence value, P(i), to 1. This conclusion is arrived at directly from the AC to ASC mapping and not from the other parameter of importance, the dynamic persistence level, N.
  • On the other hand, if a device is in one of the other ASCs (1-7), it has to carry out a calculation using the dynamic persistence level, N, sent by the network.
  • So P(N) is a function of (i.e. mathematically dependent on) the transmitted dynamic persistence level.
  • Devices which are mapped to ASC 0 by the network will automatically pass the persistence test because the random number can never exceed 1. Those devices which are mapped to ASC 1 or higher may or may not pass the persistence test. Whether they pass the persistence test depends on the value N sent by the network.

The judge held that Nokia device A1 in summary held that:

i) the bits used to transmit the dynamic persistence level, N, constitute the access threshold value bits;

ii) the AC to ASC mapping information constitute access class information;

iii) P(N) is an access threshold value which is determined from the access threshold value bits;

iv) the AC to ASC mapping information is used to determine whether the device is in:

a) ASC 0, in which case it is permitted to access the RACH independent of the received access threshold value bits because it has a P(i) value of 1 which is not a function of the persistence level N which is being broadcast by the network; or

b) an ASC other than 0 in which case it must determine access permission on the basis of an evaluation of P(N) which comprises a comparison of P(N) with a randomly generated number.

In the A1device the random number comparison gives a win/lose determination on permission, whereas in the A2 it determines the extent to which permission will be delayed. However, the judge held that, in both cases access permission is determined on the basis of an evaluation of the access threshold value and thus infringing ‘268 patent.

About the Author: Mr. Veera Raghavan, Patent Specialist at IIPRD and can be reached at: Raghavan@iiprd.com

Nokia & Ipcom


It all started when the licensing deal between Nokia and Ipcom broke in Germany. From then, it was a legal war between these two giants. While Ipcom along with its bunch of patents trying to target each and every mobile model of its rivalry, Nokia trying to revocate Ipcom’s each patent one by one. For now, Ipcom sued Nokia for they infringed its UK patents “540 808” (“808”) and “1 186 189” (“189”).

Validity of “808” Patent:

In “808” patent the principal claim relates to a synchronization method for mobile radio telephones in a cellular network comprising number of fixed stations and mobile telephones based on a GSM method, the synchronization includes an initial synchronization, a normal operation synchronization and lock-on synchronization. Testing obviousness using the principles (structured approach) in the court was not a dispute point for either of the parties. However, Nokia pointed out the claim 1 was divided into three compartments as initial, normal and lock-on synchronization, and hence in such a case it is legitimate to look into parts separately and to determine they were inventive individually. The judge agreed and Nokia presented a publication “GSM recommendations” for the obviousness attack. Nokia also relied on “Baier” patent publication and “D’ Avella”, an IEEE journal publication. The patent is anticipated by the prior art “GSM” except the data pre processing portion that happens in the normal synchronization. Also, based on the judge construction of claim and specification, “Baier” teaching of Pre-processing is very much obvious to one skilled in the art as “Baier” patent is related to a GSM scheme. Inspite of Ipcom’s argument on the technical point, Judge was of the opinion and concluded that the prior art “D’Avella” also discloses about preprocessing and hence finally concluded that the patent “808” is obvious in light of common general knowledge or in light of “Baier”, “D’Avella” and Common general knowledge taken together.

Infringement by Nokia 6300:

The judge noted that the Nokia 6300 which operates in EDGE mode, can use either GMSK or 8PSK modulation depending on the channel conditions. When 6300 uses GMSK, it follows a GSM method. The judge concluded that if the patent is valid, then the 6300 would infringe the Claims 1, 9 and 11.

Validity of “189” Patent:

In “189” patent the principal claim relates to a method for allocating access rights to atleast one subscriber station in the telecommunications network. The method further includes a check process whenever the subscriber station receives a receipt or an acknowledgment of an access authorization data. The method carries out the check process to determine whether the access authorization data that has threshold value (s) being compared to a Pseudorandom number (R).

It will be interesting to note that the judge refused to accept Nokia’s claim construction particularly in the check process. Nokia construction on check process as to whether the access threshold information is being transmitted and as such this is of no interest to the mobile station. According to judge claim construction, the check process is a check whether the mobile station is to use part of the access information to perform the access threshold function. Nokia relies on “GSM recommendation” prior art which includes a GPRS and it is an add-on to GSM. It was a piece of cake to destroy the novelty of Claim 1. The key feature “check process” to do an access threshold test is clearly disclosed in the prior art. Also, Judge issued the same opinion when Nokia pleaded to discuss the second prior art “Ericsson”. Finally, the judge concluded that there is no need to go into obviousness section over common general knowledge as it is not going to add significant value (most of them are covered in GPRS “GSM recommendation” part).

Infringement by Nokia N96:

The functioning of Nokia N96 is based on UMTS standard. Refusing to take the Nokia’s stand on infringement, Judge declares that the N96 performs both types of check as required by claim1. Therefore if “189”patent is valid, Nokia N96 would have infringed.

Although, Nokia won the battle, still the Legal War is on…as there are more cases to come…No doubt Ipcom, – $ 18 bn (approx) in the present battle, will evaluate the patent portfolio it has (including the acquired  patents!) and strongly comeback against Nokia next time…

Case Nos: HC 08C02525 and HC 08C03143

Author – Veera Raghavan Rajendran, Senior Patent Consultant

The author can be reached:  Raghavan@iiprd.com.