InterDigital wins again in Lenovo SEP dispute

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

InterDigital wins again in Lenovo SEP dispute

Laptop computer displaying logo of Lenovo

The England and Wales High Court ruled that an InterDigital patent was valid and essential to the 3G standard today, January 31

InterDigital scored another win over Lenovo at the England and Wales High Court today, January 31, after a patent it owns was found to be valid and essential to the 3G standard.

The judgment, issued by Mr Justice James Mellor, stemmed from the third technical trial in the pair’s dispute over standard-essential patents (SEPs).

The patent (EP 2,421,318 B1), which was granted in 2013 and has a priority date of August 21 2006, covers a method and apparatus for transmitting scheduling information in a wireless communication system.

Lenovo had argued the patent was invalid due to prior art including a 2006 US patent application and a technical specification published by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project that same year.

In his judgment, Mellor noted the issues in the trial were particularly complex, even for a SEP dispute.

The judge said Lenovo’s evidence suffered from hindsight, and that the case was a rare example of where inventiveness stemmed mainly from the identification of a problem.

Identification of a problem wouldn’t normally be enough to demonstrate inventiveness, the judge noted.

The latest decision comes just more than a week after the Court of Appeal affirmed a separate High Court judgment that found Lenovo had infringed another of InterDigital’s valid and essential patents.

Judgment is still pending from the trial to determine a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty for InterDigital’s portfolio, heard by Mellor last February.

The highly anticipated FRAND judgment is expected to be handed down later this year.

It will be closely watched by all SEP stakeholders due to the UK’s importance as a venue for such disputes.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article