Pedro have you had chance to read it all?
Yup, I read all four judgments from the High Court and Court of Appeal. Not the most exciting read. On entertainment value, no match for
Plebgate 
Though for what it's worth, my (uncounselled) opinion is that
The Beast of Newgate Street has gotten herself in a right fine mess, and really should stop digging any deeper.
Let's recap why:
- In the original trial, High Court judge Mr Justice Birss ruled that BT is infringing ASSIA's '790 patent (its Dynamic Line Management inventions).
- Birss J ruled that BT is infringing three separate and distinct aspects of that patent; claims #1, #10 and #13 in the '790 patent.
- BT rejected that finding and appealed. But Lord Justice Patten, Lord Justice Floyd and Mr Justice Burnton resoundingly dismissed BT's appeal.
- Furthermore, the Appeal Court re-considered the '495 patent which ASSIA claims is also infringed.
- The Appeal Court unequivocally ruled that BT is infringing patent '495, too; specifically, claim #6
- The judges also allowed ASSIA to challenge the earlier finding of non-infringement of claim #1 of the '495 patent.
- And since claim #8 of patent '495 is dependent on claim #1 of '495, that too may fall under scrutiny in a future appeal court hearing.
- That could bring the spotlight onto the 20CN and 21CN DLM systems. BT has been operating these for many years, and they too could infringe ASSIA's patents.
But if that wasn't bad enough -- four court cases all going against BT -- it just got even worse for The Beast...
In his High Court judgment, Mr Justice Birss noted that BT was bringing
parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). See para.82 [1]
The Beast's tortured thinking here was that if it could bully the EPO into declaring ASSIA's patents invalid in some way, then it wouldn't have to pay any damages for its infringements.
But that cunning plan didn't work out either; the EPO didn't buy it. BT has pestered the EPO four times now, over this one case, and has lost in every proceeding; this time being no exception. The EPO threw out BT's latest arguments.
The Nov 26 press release from patent lawyers
Boult Wade Tennant who represented ASSIA at the EPO proceedings is at: [2]
It all seems it may be a bit pie in the sky anyhow, because BT claim to have already changed their system so that it no longer impedes on copyright... and its now a waiting game until it goes back to court again to see if its adjudicated that the new system is OK and free from breach of copyright.
Hmm.. Earlier, BT
said that it had modified its DLM system, claiming to have removed all infringing components patented by ASSIA. However, according to ASSIA, BT's claims were found to be untrue; it's still using those offending components. And since this case is far from closed - with ASSIA's '495 patent still to be reconsidered - BT's infringements are likely to be ongoing, only compounding the eventual damages award.
ASSIA has spoken of a final damages award of "many millions of pounds". A figure of £13m for each year of BT's infringing operation of ASSIA's DLM inventions was mentioned earlier in this thread. Meaning that BT could be facing a bill of upwards of £40 million just for the FTTC DLM System.
Of tertiary note, perhaps, is BT's effort to deploy its corporate shills and stooges around the internet forums and web-boards; tasking them with putting a veneer over the company's disastrous escapades in the courts. For example, there's a concerted effort to claim, in unattributable form, that BT's offending DLM System pre-dates ASSIA's patent, and therefore was "Prior Art" in terms of patent law. According to the Courts that is just not true.
Furthermore, much of the terminology and functionality of the offending DLM system was discussed privately by the parties in closed court. Those disclosures while referenced in the main judgments, remain private. Yet, interestingly, on public internet forums we're now seeing what is likely to be "strategic leaking" by BT of confidential information from the product and process description ("PPD") for the DLM Systems; information that was disclosed only in closed court. What is BT's agenda in leaking the PPD contents; if indeed that is what is happening? To create the impression of Prior Art to the offending DLM Systems? The Systems' methods and modes of operation being "
common general knowledge", supposedly?
[1]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2013/3768.html[2]
http://www.boult.com/includes/documents/cm_docs/2014/b/bulletin-further-patent-successes-for-assia-over-bt.pdf
