REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Put up or shut up: Nokia vs IPCom

No items found.
​
February 23, 2011
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Digital
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

This appeal decision demonstrates the importance of considering potential patent amendments early in litigious proceedings. The appeal was concerned with two patents which were part of a larger dispute between IPCom and Nokia. IPCom alleged infringement by Nokia of two patents, European Patent (UK) No. 0,540,808 (the "Synch Patent ") and European Patent (UK) No. 1,186,189 (the "Access Rights Patent"). Nokia countersued alleging invalidity.


At first instance Floyd J had found both patents to lack inventive step. In addition IPCom had made two applications to amend the “Access Rights Patent” either side of the main trial. Both applications to amend were rejected by Floyd J. IPCom did not challenge the invalidity decision regarding the “Access Rights Patent” and instead sought to appeal the rejections of their two applications to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld Floyd J’s original decisions in all three instances. In relation to the applications to amend, Jacob LJ stated that "IPCom had every opportunity of proposing the amendments in time so that there could be a trial about them, it did not do so (whether deliberately or not we do not know), it only proposed amendments too late for them to be dealt with fairly at the trial, it elected to go to trial on the patent as it stood, and only when it lost did it seek to prolong matters thereby to vex Nokia again with the same patent. The Judge was fully entitled to regard that as procedurally unfair and to refuse to allow that to happen”.

Jacob LJ went on to explain that this was clearly set out in the Civil Procedure rules, and is consistent with the position taken by the EPO.

The procedural rules of the Court (CPR Part 63.10) as summarised in Nikken v Pioneer Trading [2005] EWCA Civ 906, allow a patentee to formulate one or more "fallback" positions by way of amendment, and to make it clear that amendment is only sought if his patent as it stands is found invalid.

This approach is similar to the “auxiliary requests” used before the European Patent Office. Jacob LJ referred to Article 13(3) of the amended Rules of Procedure before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office which states that “amendments sought to be made after oral proceedings have been arranged shall not be admitted if they raise issues which the Board or the other party or parties cannot reasonably be expected to deal with without adjournment of the oral proceedings”. In reality, the EPO will often allow amendments which are proposed after oral proceedings are arranged, and even during the proceedings themselves. Nevertheless, Jacob LJ relied on Art. 13(3) as demonstrating that the position of the English courts was consistent with that of the EPO.

This case highlights the need for litigants to both consider and propose potential amendments to their patents at a relatively early stage in proceedings, as otherwise they risk a patent being invalidated which could otherwise have been saved. As summarised by the Court of Appeal: “put up in time, or shut up”.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​