NCLAT: Unenforced Equitable Mortgage is Corporate Debtor’s Asset, Not to Be Treated as Margin Money  ||  NCLT Approves Hindustan Unilever’s Ice Cream Business Demerger into Kwality Wall’s  ||  Supreme Court: Bar Councils Cannot Charge Over Rs 750 for Enrollment or Withhold Applicants’ Docs  ||  SC Cancels POCSO Conviction, Observing Crime Resulted from Love, Not Lust, After Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Advocates Can be Summoned Only under S.132 BSA Exceptions with Prior Officer Approval  ||  Allahabad HC: Juvenile Conviction Cannot be Treated as Disqualification for Government Jobs  ||  Delhi HC: DV Act Rights of Daughter-in-Law Cannot Deny In-Laws’ Right to Reside in Home  ||  Delhi HC: Waitlist Panel Cannot Be Segregated, Vacancies Must Be Filled From Valid Waitlist  ||  Delhi HC: Matrimonial FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Couple’s Settlement Agreement is Not Executed  ||  Delhi HC Bars All India Carrom Federation from Using “India” or “Indian” in its Name    

Interdigital Communications, Inc and Ors. Vs. ZTE Corporation and Anr. - (03 Nov 2017)

If the testimony provided by an expert is consistent with the infringement action then the infringement is liable to be proven

Intellectual Property Rights

The background against which the instant Appeals have been filed is that InterDigital Communications, Inc.; InterDigital Technology Corp.; IPR Licensing, Inc.; and InterDigital Holdings (collectively, InterDigital) brought this suit against ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, ZTE) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. InterDigital alleged that ZTE was infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847, which, as relevant here, claim a specified apparatus for wireless communications. InterDigital and ZTE have litigated these patents and related ones before the International Trade Commission in at least three proceedings, two of which resulted in written decisions from this court: Inter- Digital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission (InterDigital I), 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and InterDigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission (InterDigital II), 601 F. App’x 972 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, a jury found ZTE liable for infringement of the ’966 and ’847 patents, and the District Court denied ZTE’s post-trial motion for judgment of non infringement as a matter of law. ZTE appeals a key claim construction adopted by the District Court as well as the Court’s denial of its post-trial motion. This Court observed that InterDigital’s invalidity expert did not give testimony inconsistent with that infringement finding. InterDigital’s invalidity expert testified that one cannot randomly select a series of chips to serve as the preamble, then randomly select a series of chips to serve as the message, and ultimately claim that the preamble and message are part of a same code. He agreed with counsel that the two generated codes cannot be retrospectively combined but that the “same code has to be something which is somehow defined to be a sequence.” His testimony is consistent with the Qualcomm documents, on which the infringement expert relied, as well as the 3GPP technical specification. The Qualcomm design documents explain that “the scrambling code for the [P]RACH message corresponds to the same scrambling code that is used in the construction of the [P]RACH preamble.” Hence, we affirm the District Court’s finding.

Tags : PATENTS   INFRINGEMENT   EXPERT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved