UK court rules in Intel's favor in R2 Semi power patent case

The High Court of England and Wales has sided with Intel in a multinational patent dispute brought by R2 Semiconductor alleging the x86 giant infringed on its voltage regulation tech. California-based chip designer R2 brought the case in late 2023, seeking an injunction barring the sale of certain Intel chips which it claimed …

[Pascal Monett]

So, the patents are invalid in the UK

But are, apparently, valid in Germany.

So basically, patents are a nightmare everywhere. Until there is one, international patent court, that is. But then, given the farce that is the United Nations, it's pretty clear that we humans are totally incapable of managing anything on a large scale that cannot be corrupted or influenced outside the established rules.

In other words, as a species, we need a benevolent dictator to ruthlessly enforce the rules we have ourselves chosen, because we can't be arsed to do that in the long run.

[Snake]

Re: So, the patents are invalid in the UK

Some quick study shows R2 lost the same case in the U.S. and that the hedge fund Third Point owns 75% of R2 and is funding the litigation.

And now the UK courts state a invalidation due to prior art.

In other words, from here anyway lacking more info, R2 sounds awfully like a patent troll: they took concepts from the openly-published tech paper, applied for patents and then sued as a method of income.

[Andy The Hat]

Re: So, the patents are invalid in the UK

I don't know if that's quite true.

Intel won in the UK as the Judge decided the patent was invalid *but* R2's case for infringement was otherwise sound.

In Germany Intel lost as R2's case was sound but it is not clear whether the Judge looked at the validity of the patent underpinning it. So, hypothetically, if the patent is questioned in Germany the result could be the same as the UK.

Either way, I agree it looks like patent trolling ... Reading the case it appears the patent wording is so loose that R2's lawyers can't even decide what half their descriptions mean and the general description is basically splitting a single output rail switch mode into a multiple buck converter bank with smoothing on individual converters - a design which has been used in various forms for decades.

[Snake]

Re: don't know if that's quite true

"Intel won in the UK as the Judge decided the patent was invalid *but* R2's case for infringement was otherwise sound."

Only lawyers would try to justify an obvious decision with double-speak.

'Your case of the neighbor's pig flying into your window to harass you is sound. If only pigs could fly.'

Without a patent there fundamentally *is* no case. Intel could, and apparently did, claim that their designs are based on the academic paper and that R2 could go suck an egg to try to get a thin dime from them. Intel is 2-for-3 in that, we'll see what happens at the German appeal.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: don't know if that's quite true

The UK judge provided clarity, the German didn't. Isn't that the former the better way of doing it?

[Snake]

Re: clarity

Eh? My post isn't about clarity, for as you say it is better that the UK courts said why. My post is in support of the UK decision, it makes sense (I did say it was "obvious", and I can't see why Germany couldn't see this)

[Andy The Hat]

Re: don't know if that's quite true

"Only lawyers would try to justify an obvious decision with double-speak.

'Your case of the neighbor's pig flying into your window to harass you is sound. If only pigs could fly.' "

I think you completely misunderstand the case.

The patent exists, there is no question of that, the pig does fly and did collide with a window but should he have been let out of his pen?

The UK case looked at Intel's infringement of the cited patent and also the validity of that patent that the claim was based on. Therefore the Judge could rightly declare that as he considers the patent invalid the (perfectly good) claim based on it is lost. I believe the German court assumes that the patent is legally valid then they look into Intel's infringement of that patent, finding for R2, hence the difference in judgement. Simples.

To contest the patent validity in the EU would require another case and a protracted visit to EU patent court.

[Bonzo_red]

Re: So, the patents are invalid in the UK

The UK courts, like those in the US, consider both validity and infringement. In Germany, the state courts consider infrinement but cannot decide on validty for a patent covering the whole counry. There is therefore a federal patent court for deciding on validity only, with cases running in parallel to the infringement case. As the patent court runs a bit slower, the finding on infringement is generally before the finding on validity. The patent owner can therefore be awarded an injunction for a patent which is then declared invalid a few months later.

[Anonymous Coward]

on-chip voltage regulator ‘technology’

A switched mode voltage regulator on a chip. Yet again an abuse of the patent system. It's interesting how it was granted in Europe.

Quality at the EPO: staff and industry concerns not addressed

[markrand]

In the meantime, I do hope that Jian Sun got at least a good bottle of whisky for his original work.

[At Random]

There is not necessarily a difference in the final outcome

The UK and German findings are not necessarilty inconsistent because of the different legal processes.

In the UK jusrisdictions, if you are sued for patent infringement, in your response you will most likely do two things:

a: defend the suit (i.e., argue that you do not infringe); and

b: counterclaim for invalidity (i.e., argue that irrespective of a:, the patent is no good so that it does not matter that it seems you infringe it).

These are both lumped in together in the UK in one action: Intel lost on a: but won on b:, so Intel came out the winner.

In Germany, you cannot mix a: and b:. They are two separate legal processes, which gives rise to a race condition. If the invalidity action has not concluded before any infringement action is concluded, then infringement can potentially still be found in a: (and injunctions and damages awarded) before the patent is subseqently found to be invalid in b:.