Telecom — India Patent Cases
105 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 4 · 105 total
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian patents IN'056 and IN'246, while Nokia had filed a separate infringement suit (CS(COMM) 643/2025) against Asustek alleging infringement of patents IN'507 and IN'105. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Delhi High Court allowed Asustek to withdraw the revocation petitions and disposed of them with liberty to reinstitute proceedings in accordance with law if so required.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent IN'206. Nokia had separately filed CS(COMM) 643/2025 alleging infringement of patent nos. 424507 and 338105. During pendency, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. Consequently, the Delhi High Court permitted withdrawal of the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
Koninklijke Kpn N V v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
The case involves Koninklijke Kpn N V alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio by Guangdong Oppo Mobile's WebRTC compliant devices. The court issued several orders regarding procedural matters, including granting extensions, allowing the filing of confidential documents, and setting dates for interim injunction hearings.
LG Electronics Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
LG Electronics Inc filed a suit against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors seeking restraining orders for infringing its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 4G and 5G cellular standards. The court passed several interim orders allowing the plaintiff various applications, including filing confidential documents and adding claims for infringement of additional patents.
Panoptis Patent Management Llc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
Panoptis Patent Management LLC filed a suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., asserting infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking leave to amend claims and file documents, while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings and listing for injunction hearing.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd
The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.
Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr v.Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Malikie Innovations Ltd filed a suit against Xiaomi Corporation seeking restraining orders against infringing their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are incorporated into 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and declarations regarding FRAND compliance. The court allowed various interlocutory applications, including leave to amend claims and grant temporary injunctions.
Communication Components Antenna Inc v.Ace Technologies Corp.
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antenna Inc., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Ace Technologies Corp. for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893 related to cellular base station components. Despite previous orders requiring deposits/bank guarantees from the defendants, the court found that the defendants' financial position was precarious and their non-compliance undermined the plaintiff's rights. Consequently, the court directed the defendant to deposit a substantial amount as security.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 1071/DEL/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The refusal was based partly on objections related to amendments, which the appellant argued were merely corrections and explanations within the scope of Section 59. The High Court found that the impugned order lacked reasoning regarding the rejection of these amendments.
Huawei Techonologies Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
Huawei Technologies challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 202237060506) by the Controller General of Patents. The initial rejection was based purely on procedural grounds, specifically alleging deficiencies in the General Power of Attorney (GPA). Huawei argued that this formalistic approach ignored the technical merits and violated principles of natural justice. The Calcutta High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, finding the sole ground for rejection untenable, and remanded the matter to a new Hearing Officer.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 7133/CHENP/2009) on the grounds that the invention was a non-patentable 'business method' under Section 3(k). The High Court examined the claim and held that since the invention involves using software to improve system functionality for verification, it is not merely a business method. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-consideration.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
France Telecom v.Union of India
France Telecom filed a Writ Petition challenging orders from the Patent Office which returned its patent application because the request for examination was made beyond the statutory 48-month limit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to an error by their Indian agent, constituting exceptional circumstances. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the impugned orders.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the dismissal of its patent application (No. 4866/CHENP/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on alleged non-filing of Form-3, coverage by the original application, and exceeding the specification. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller had not applied its mind to the facts, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.