Dolby sues Oppo and Vivo

Dolby has sued two Chinese phone manufacturers, Oppo and Vivo, at the Delhi High Court stating that the two companies are using Dolby’s SEPs without a license. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held the following: –

  1. That Oppo and Vivo shall deposit royalty with the Court @ INR 34 per unit manufactured/sold/imported by 8th of every succeeding month.
  2. That Oppo and Vivo shall furnish details of the units manufactured, sold and imported, to Dolby by 5th of every month.
  3. That Oppo and Vivo shall continue to manufacture, sell and import their units in the interim while licensing negotiations based on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms between the parties is ongoing.
Advertisements

Ericsson on a spree of favourable orders

Delhi High Court passed an interim injunction order in the ongoing case of Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd that prevents Lava from importing, exporting, manufacturing, and selling any mobile phones that use Ericsson’s 8 SEP patents and technology.The defendant is also barred from exporting the impugned goods. The Custom Authorities have also been directed to not release the impugned mobile phones if received from overseas countries under technology of suit patents of the plaintiff. 

The interim order, which is passed on merit, directed defendant to  deposit a sum of Rs.50 crores with the Registrar General of the Court by way of FDR as security amount on or before 20th June, 2016, the operation of interim order shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the main suit. In addition to that, the defendant was also asked to file the statement of accounts for the period of 2011 to 31st May, 2016 before Court by 10th July, 2016 and continue to file the same every quarterly till the final judgment is delivered in the main suit.

Section 3(k)

With regard to Section 3(k), the Court held that, the ultimate object of the invention is an efficient encoder rendering the synthesized speech quality in relation to radio resource needed for transmission is as high as possible. The Court noted that the speech quality is an effect perceptible by the humans and is not just as abstract entity. The judge pronounced that:

 “Prima facie, it appears that these inventions which have resulted in an improvement (technical advancement) in telecommunication technologies and have had a huge effect upon the manner in which these technologies function thereby resulting in practical implementation and actual physical representation Mere mention of an algorithm or a mathematical formula in a patent document should not be inferred to mean that the invention is nothing but an algorithm. The similar issue has already been dealt by this court in a suit filed against INTEX in great details wherein the arguments of doubtfulness were rejected. Thus, no different view is possible in the present case.”

The Court also held that product patents cannot be labelled as algorithm because they are not a set of instructions and are not theoretical in nature. The Court further held the defendant has failed to raise any credible challenge to the suit patents.

As regards the licence agreement, the Court held that the defendant has been consistently delayed execution of the agreement with the plaintiff and in such a case, unlike in trademark and copyright matters, the infringement ought to go in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also held that the plaintiff has been trying to correspond and negotiate with the defendant for the past 4 years and that itself is a huge factor that militates any grant of further time to the defendant , especially in cases of standard essential patents, where a patentee always endeavors to negotiate before filing for an injunction. Moreover, it was held that the fact that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s patents but did not challenge the validity goes in favour of injunction.

iBall restricted from importing handsets to India;Ericsson directed to negotiate FRAND license with iBall

The Delhi High Court restricts imports by iBall including mobile handsets and tablets in Ericsson vs. iBall interim order. This is similar to the case filed by Ericsson against Micromax, in which the court had ordered the Indian handset maker to pay royalty as an interim measure.

In the present case, it has been established in the court of law that iBall has failed to agree to sign a license agreement on standard-essential patents, required for making mobile phones and other devices. It was also established that iBall has not entered into a licensing agreement under the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms (covering patents on wireless technology standards such as GSM, EDGE and third generation).

Hence, on the day of the hearing on August 21, 2015, the lawyers for iBall sought time to take instructions from their client to decide if it was willing to sit with the  representatives of Ericsson and discuss the matter. However, no communication was received from iBall till September 2, 2015. iBall , in its defence also cited the recent Huawei vs ZTE decision to argue that Ericsson had not provided enough information and thus the suit could not proceed.Ericsson alleged that iBall had admitted the essentiality of Ericsson’s patents numerous times in its complaint to the CCI.

The Court, however pronounced that the suit filed by Ericsson is not premature and is maintainable. It further held that if the interim direction/order is not granted, Ericsson will suffer irreparable loss and injury for the reason that iBall will keep marketing mobile devices without the FRAND agreement and without paying royalty.It also restrained iBall from importing mobile handsets and other devices (including tablets) that infringe Swedish telecom equipment manufacturer Ericsson’s registered patents.The interim order was to become operative beginning 9th September.

However, an appeal was then filed by iBall against the interim order.The Appeal Court has directed the parties to try and reach a settlement in about 2 weeks.Ericsson has been directed to negotiate a FRAND license with iBall only for its Indian patents at this stage.The operation of the interim injunction has now been postponed till the next date of hearing as well.The appeal was re-notified to September 21, 2015.