R2 Semiconductor, Inc v Intel Corporation (UK) Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1974 (Pat)
R2 Semiconductor Inc. v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd & Anor
26 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1550 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies are fighting over a patent for a computer part. One company made a copy of the other company's design to test it. A judge said the company that made the copy has to either agree it's accurate or explain why it's wrong, to speed up the court case.
Key Facts
- •R2 Semiconductor Inc. (Claimant) owns a patent for on-chip voltage regulators in microprocessors.
- •Intel Corporation (Defendants) are accused of infringing the patent.
- •Defendants counterclaimed for patent revocation.
- •An expedited trial is scheduled for September 2023.
- •The Claimant used a reverse-engineered model (R2 Model) to simulate the Defendants' products.
- •The Claimant seeks an order requiring the Defendants to either admit the R2 Model's accuracy or explain its inaccuracies.
- •The Defendants argue the Claimant's application is based on insufficient evidence and doesn't comply with PD 63.
- •The Claimant's R2 Model focuses on specific integers of the claims (1.2, 11, 12) related to voltage spike protection circuitry.
Legal Principles
Practice Direction 63 (PD 63) governs experiments in patent proceedings, including the provision of Product and Process Descriptions (PPDs).
Practice Direction 63
In patent litigation, the disclosure obligation doesn't require a party to create new information or conduct new experiments.
CPR (Civil Procedure Rules)
A Notice of Experiments should seek admissions on specific, relevant facts to a party's pleaded case, not on ‘stepping-stone’ facts.
EMGS v Petroleum Geo-Services [2016] FSR 25 at [21]
Outcomes
The court granted the Claimant's application.
Balancing the compressed timetable (largely due to the Defendants' request for expedition) and the potential for further delays if the application were denied, the court found that granting the application would promote efficiency and focus the dispute on key disagreements. The court also noted that the case was non-standard due to the reliance on computer simulations and that the existing PPD, while not deficient, did not provide the information the Claimant required.