• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

After IPR: Ericsson wins in WLAN Patent dispute

27. July 2018

The telecommunications giant Ericsson wins in the US a patent dispute over “Frequency Hopping”, a wireless communication technology. The Inter-Partes Review of the patent in question was initially rejected by the Patent and Trial Board of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

IPR against “Frequency Hopping” Patent

Ericsson Platine

The Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for the US Pat. No. 6,952,408 at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2014. The patent, entitled “Method of Baseband Frequency Hopping Utilizing Time Division Multiplexed Mapping between A Radio Transceiver and Digital Signal Processing Resources” was registered in 2005 and is owned by the Intellectual Ventures patent licensing company.

As already mentioned in the name, the patent describes a method of “frequency hopping” between a transceiver and resources for digital signal processing. Frequency hopping is a radio transmission method in which the modulated carrier frequency changes abruptly. The method used in WLANs and mobile networks should help to reduce communication disruptions.

Since 2012 – with the revision of the American Patent Act by the America Invents Act (AIA) – a special procedure called the Inter Partes Review has been available for filing a patent application with the US Patent Office. This makes it possible to challenge a granted patent not only with an elaborate nullity action before a court, but with a considerably less elaborate administrative procedure before the patent office. A special feature of this procedure is that the patent office only opens the procedure if the justification of the application indicates a reasonable likelihood of success. The decision of acceptance of the proceedings by the Patent Office is subject to U. S. Patent Law final and not subject to appeal.

IPR Rejected: Patent not “Anticipated”

WLAN Router

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially rejected Ericsson’s IPR and upheld all 16 claims of the ‘408 patent. Ericsson appealed against the decision. In the opinion of the Swedes, claim 1 of the ‘408 patent is merely an extensive recitation of the well-known “frequency hopping” method already described in US Pat. No. 5,592,480.

The in 1997 registered US Patent ‘480 also describes, like the’ 408 patent, a base station for a wireless communication system.

The PTAB came to the conclusion that both patents share essential aspects but can not be linked together. The ‘480 patent would not “anticipate the’ 408 patent” because “frequency hopping” is only an “optional feature”.

US Court of Appeals Reverses PTAB Decision

Now the case went to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which dealt with the decision of the PTAB. Based on the evidence, the CAFC can not share the PTAB’s view on the aspect of anticipation, because: The ‘408 patent and the’ 480 patent contain nearly identical diagrams of a broadband base station. Thus, according to the CAFC, claim 1 of the ‘408 patent could be attributed to the’ 480 patent and so the PATB decision could not be uphold. Claims 2-16 are not affected by the decision.

 

Do you want help for patent application or protection for your patents?

Our Patent Attorneys and Attorneys at Law bundle are experts in patent- and trademark law, national and international.
Please take your chance and contact us – a request for a call-back is non-binding:

CAT-call_en

Source:

Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Image:

wilkernet / pixabay.com/ CCO License | choukyin / pixabay.com/ CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law,  Licenses Tag iconinter partes review,  IPR,  ericsson,  frequency hopping,  patent trial and appeal board,  us court of appeals,  Patent

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]