Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC appeared for the defendants (“Intel”) and Edmund Eustace appeared as junior counsel for the claimant (“R2”) in proceedings concerning a dispute on infringement and validity of an R2 patent for semiconductor technology (“the Patent”).
The Patent claimed a form of circuitry for a voltage regulator, which R2 alleged was infringed by processors and other microelectronic devices marketed by Intel. The claimed circuitry was intended to reduce voltage spikes caused by the rapid switching of transistors within a voltage regulator. Such spikes can fatally damage integrated circuits, or at least gradually degrade a circuit’s performance, if they are not reduced below a certain level. The Patent claimed dividing the switching components of the circuit into smaller blocks and required that they be ‘interleaved’ (which was held to mean ‘arranged in close proximity to’) corresponding blocks of voltage-spike protection circuitry.
HHJ Hacon, sitting as a judge of the Patents Court, found the Patent invalid over a single piece of prior art (“Sun”). He held that it would have been obvious to the skilled person to modify the circuit in Sun such that it fell within claim 1 of the Patent, namely by adding a capacitor at the input to protect against voltage spikes. The Judge further held that, were the Patent valid, it would have been infringed by the fully integrated voltage regulators (“FIVRs”) contained in Intel’s products.