AAPL Stock: 117.81 ( -0.22 )

Printed from

HTC strikes blow against Apple in UK patent battle

updated 10:30 pm EDT, Wed July 4, 2012

Three Apple patents ruled invalid, HTC not infringing

A London court which has a reputation for being loathe to find companies guilty of infringement has handed HTC an unsurprising victory against Apple in declaring that the Taiwanese smartphone maker is not in violation of any of four patents Apple was asserting. HTC, which brought the case defensively hoping to get all four Apple patents declared invalid, got its way on three of the four but was cleared of any infringing charges.

The court found that Apple's "slide-to-unlock" feature was "obvious" and pointed to HTC-submitted prior art of a similar function on an earlier Swedish phone, the Neonode N1. On that phone, a padlock is shown on screen with the instructions "right sweep to unlock" (a video demonstrating this is seen below). Apple had maintained that HTC's "arc unlock" feature was too similar to its own, but both are fundamentally similar to the Neonode, which was introduced in 2005 just before the iPhone came out.

Prior art was also the undoing of another Apple patent, referred to as the "multilingual keyboard" patent. Two earlier examples of prior art (a bit of documentation to the GSM standard and a German cellphone) were cited in calling the patent "obvious." Had the patent been declared valid, HTC (and most other Android device makers) would have been guilty of infringing it, the court found.

Apple also lost out on a patent for multi-touch, described as a "touch event model" that detected when users were using more than one finger. The judge found that Apple's description qualified as a "computer program as such" and thus was not protected, as the EU doesn't recognize software patents. The court also noted that one of Apple's claims would have been rejected for obviousness if the patent had been upheld. HTC was found not to be infringing (and thus no Android device maker would have been found to be infringing).

The only silver lining for Apple was the validation of a patent regarding photo management, specifically a "photo gallery page-flipping" technique. While HTC (and by extension other companies) were ruled to have worked around it in a way that did not infringe, the court said the patent should be upheld as valid.

Though reported widely as a major victory for HTC, in fact the company had already worked around most of the claims previously, and a German court had already declared the slide-to-unlock patent invalid for the same reasons in a case against Samsung. The court battle was not brought on by Apple as has been the case in some other hearings, but was an attempt by HTC to strengthen its hand in ongoing battles with Apple and picked the venue for the battle. Patent-litigation analyst Florian Mueller has noted that the London court is known for avoiding rulings of infringement, finding violations in only about 15 percent of all the cases it hears.

The UK ruling is expected to have little impact in other ongoing cases, as the Neonode N1 was never released in the US for example and may be able to be contested there. It should have more influence in any further European courts on these matters, however Apple is expected to appeal. The "slide-to-unlock" patent validation is expected to be an uphill battle for Apple, however, as it was already declared invalid once before, late last year in Germany.

Apple does still have a victory over HTC with the International Trade Commission, which ruled in December that HTC copied Apple's "data tapping" patent (that allows, for example, a phone number in a text to be tapped on to call that number using the phone program). The company was unsuccessful, however, in an attempt to get an emergency ban of some 28 new HTC smartphones from being imported into the US over that patent. The ITC dispute is still ongoing an unlikely to be affected by the UK court ruling.

Apple has also sued HTC in the US last Thursday alleging that the company is abusing standards-essential patents and FRAND licensing agreements. The complaint is similar to charges Apple has brought against Samsung and Motorola (and thus by proxy, Google), and the charge has enjoyed wide support from other players in the technology and electronics sector.

Video demo of Neonode N1's "slide-to-unlock" prior art (at 4:00 mark)

by MacNN Staff



  1. gooser

    Joined: Dec 1969


    tsk tsk

    well you win some and you lose some.

  1. chas_m




    that Apple has even bothered with the "slide to unlock" patent since the video shows clearly that they didn't invent the concept. I would tell them to focus on the stuff they clearly invented first and differentiated from previous efforts if they want to win the overall patent battle.

  1. Arne_Saknussemm

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Was there ANY research into -

    PREVIOUS ART before granting this patent to Apple?

  1. Arne_Saknussemm

    Joined: Dec 1969


    By the way the NeoNode was kool!

    For such a small (and old) device it had a full compliment of user accessible ports;
    USB, Full sized SD card, Standard sized SIM card, headphone (although 2.5mm).

    Apple should take good notice of the fact that you can take out the SIM without ANY tools, and it's a full size one, consumers should not believe the bullkaka about needing a smaller card to fit into modern phones when such a small and dated device could handle a standard SIM and media.

  1. Arne_Saknussemm

    Joined: Dec 1969


    On a separate note...

    Would it not be cool to have a modern phone that size?

    it does not have to have all the bells and whistles,
    just an elegant gesture interface like on the NeoNode,
    and a very sturdy case to double as a fashion statement.

  1. Jim Denk

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Common sense - how refreshing!

    Wow, so refreshing to see a judge exhibit some common sense in one of these rulings. And even nicer is to see them dig through the books to find a "date of first use" for the slide to unlock feature. I mean, it's silly for them to sue over something so obvious in the first place but nice to see a judge find a the legal mechanism to throw the case out. Found tons of info about how 'date of first use' works and other Intellectual Property concepts on Intellectual Propery Basics for anyone else that's interested

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented