Log in
E-mail
Password
Remember
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Settings
Settings
Dynamic quotes 
OFFON

MarketScreener Homepage  >  Equities  >  NASDAQ OMX HELSINKI LTD.  >  Nokia Oyj    NOKIA   FI0009000681

NOKIA OYJ

(NOKIA)
  Report
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisions 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Case Study: Contradictory Interpretations Of Means-plus-function Claims In China

01/20/2021 | 05:11am EST

According to the Chinese Patent Law and practice, means-plus-function claims are interpreted differently at the time of Chinese patent prosecution and Chinese patent litigation. 

Basically, while “means-plus-function” claims are interpreted as “any means that could achieve the function” by examiner(s) during patent examination (i.e., a broad claim that is difficult to be granted), such claims are merely interpreted as “embodiments disclosed in the Specification, or equivalent thereof” by the judge(s) during patent litigation (i.e., a relatively narrow claim that makes it difficult to enforce). 

Apparently, the CNIPA and the Court(s) did not reach a consensus on how to interpret “means-plus-function” claims at examination stage and at enforcement stage. However, such a discrepancy indicate that both CNIPA and the Court(s) do not like “means-plus-function” claims and thus treat such claims in a way that is not in favour of the patentee(s).

Therefore, if the applicant wants to pursue a patent protection in China with means-plus-function claims, it would be highly recommended to at least add some structural claim(s) as fall-back positions, in order to put the patent application at a better position during both prosecution and litigation. 

Case Study

In the case of Nokia Corporation v.s. Shanghai Huaqin Telecom Technology Co., Ltd., The key issue is the interpretation of claims relating to computer program, including the determination of functional features.

The patentee Nokia accused Shanghai Huaqin for patent infringement, and Shanghai Huaqin subsequently filed a Request for Invalidation against Nokia's patent.

The dispute focused on the interpretation of claims 6 and 7 of the patent in question:

Claim 6. A terminal device configured to determine a message to be transmitted based on input received from a user.

The terminal device is further configured to: check ...; and

the terminal device is configured to: in order to transmit the message, select ... , characterized in that:

the characteristic information is one of the following information:...

Claim 7. The terminal device of claim 6, characterized in that: the terminal device is configured to: select the data transmission method to be applied to a message editor for inputting a message; the terminal device is configured to: based on the selection of the data transmission method performed in the message editor, transmit the message to a data transmission application that supports the selected data transmission method; and the terminal device is configured to: transmit the message to the telecommunications network according to the data transmission protocol used by the data transmission application.

In the invalidation proceeding,  the Reexamination board of the CNIPA held that, as the terminal device cannot be clearly described by structural features, the use of method features to characterize the product is allowable and claim 6 is definite. The Reexamination board also held that based on the contents of the specification and common general knowledge in the field, those skilled in the art can understand the composition and working mode of the terminal device as recited in claims 6-10. Therefore, the claims are supported by the disclosure in the specification.

In the infringement litigation proceeding, the court of the first instance held that embodiments in claim 7 is disclosed in the specification, but the description involves merely methods, steps or functions without the description of the device. Further, specific implementations on how the device is "configured to" cannot be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim scope of Nokia's patent cannot be definitely determined in conjunction with the specification. Consequently, the court of first instance held that it was impossible to determine whether Huaqin had implemented Nokia's patents, and Huaqin constituted no infringement. The court of the second instance upheld the decision subsequently.

Summary

Regarding claim 7, Nokia submitted that a skilled artisan can understand how each technical feature is "configured to" and how its structure is improved. In the invalidation decision, the Reexamination board of the CNIPA has confirmed that the claims are clear, that the claims are fully disclosed in the specification, and that the claims are supported by the specification. 

However, the claims which remained valid after the invalidity challenge were not supported in the infringement litigation. Specifically, the court held that the device claim is unclear because the specific implementation of the device was not specifically disclosed in the specification. In other words, the judicial decision in the infringement litigation essentially ruled that the patent was not enforceable, which does not have much difference as being “invalid”. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Xiao Han
Chofn Intellectual Property
Zuoan Gongshe Plaza 12th Floor
68 North Fourth Ring Road W
Haidian
Beijing
100080
CHINA
Tel: +8610-8260 7266
Fax: +8610-6213 1630
E-mail: Office@chofn.cn
URL: en.chofn.com/resources/articles/

© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about NOKIA OYJ
09:57aRAJEEV SURI : UK's Inmarsat appoints former Nokia boss Rajeev Suri CEO
RE
06:58aUnified Communications Market to Witness Massive Growth by 2026 | Cisco Syste..
AQ
06:18aNOKIA : Globe Telecom Selects Nokia to Rollout 5G in the Philippines
MT
05:58aNOKIA OYJ : Wins Order To Build 5G Network In Philippines
MT
04:26aGLOBE TELECOM : Nokia wins 5G order from Philippines' Globe Telecom
RE
04:00aNokia selected by Globe Telecom to rollout 5G in the Philippines in three-yea..
GL
02/23Ethisphere names Nokia as one of the 2021 world's most ethical companies
GL
02/23NOKIA OYJ : unveils new 5G core deployment services to give operators better cap..
PU
02/18European ADRs Move Sharply Lower in Thursday Trading
MT
02/18Nokia wins multi-year 5G radio and core contract with A1 Austria
GL
More news
Financials
Sales 2020 21 530 M 26 130 M 26 130 M
Net income 2020 615 M 746 M 746 M
Net cash 2020 1 992 M 2 418 M 2 418 M
P/E ratio 2020 29,7x
Yield 2020 0,30%
Capitalization 18 538 M 22 542 M 22 499 M
EV / Sales 2020 0,77x
EV / Sales 2021 0,74x
Nbr of Employees 94 250
Free-Float 93,5%
Chart NOKIA OYJ
Duration : Period :
Nokia Oyj Technical Analysis Chart | NOKIA | FI0009000681 | MarketScreener
Technical analysis trends NOKIA OYJ
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsNeutralNeutralNeutral
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 26
Average target price 3,90 €
Last Close Price 3,29 €
Spread / Highest target 61,3%
Spread / Average Target 18,5%
Spread / Lowest Target -36,6%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
NameTitle
Pekka Ilmari Lundmark President & Chief Executive Officer
Marco Wirén Chief Financial Officer
Sari Maritta Baldauf Chairman
Marcus Weldon Chief Technology Officer
Nishant Batra Chief Strategy & Technology Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capitalization (M$)
NOKIA OYJ4.30%22 542
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.1.52%192 133
FOXCONN INDUSTRIAL INTERNET CO., LTD.0.73%42 379
ERICSSON AB6.87%42 240
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.4.99%30 180
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.-1.20%21 913