Telecom — India Patent Cases
105 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 4 · 105 total
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd
Nokia Technologies OY filed a patent infringement suit against Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd and others, claiming infringement of their patent related to mobile telecommunications. The case involved multiple hearings and ultimately led to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Oplus Mobitech India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Koninklijke Philips N.V., filed suit alleging infringement of five Indian patents covering SEPs essential to 3G/4G telecommunication standards by the Defendants, who manufacture and sell OnePlus smartphones. The court addressed an application for a pro-tem arrangement, recognizing the importance of these SEPs in industry standards.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The court heard matters concerning various parties, including T-Mobile Usa Inc vs Controller Of Patents. The hearing focused on issues related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
T-Mobile USA Inc appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for 'Preferred Contact Group Centric Interface'. The Controller refused the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art and arguing that the invention was essentially a computer program per se, lacking technical effect beyond normal hardware interaction.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
The plaintiff alleges infringement of its patents by the Amazon Prime Video service, specifically regarding the Trending Now and Continue Watching features.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs
Huawei appealed an order rejecting its patent application (IN 4561) for a radio communication system. The appeal argued that the Patent Office failed to consider detailed arguments against obviousness and rejected amendments without proper justification. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of reasoned consideration and set it aside, remanding the matter.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
The review petitions sought reconsideration of an earlier court order that had negated a preliminary objection to the maintainability of two applications. The core dispute revolves around alleged non-compliance by the respondent with directions, specifically concerning the payment of 'entire royalty amount' as mandated by previous orders.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3211/CHENP/2010) for 'Software Defined Radio Architecture'. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to consider their submissions in response to the First Examination Report, despite prior art documents being cited.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978). The Controller rejected the application citing lack of clarity in method claims and unnecessary amendments. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the grounds for rejection were not based on merits, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application (No. 201947028978). The rejection was based on various objections, including lack of novelty and clarity in claims. The High Court found that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947028978) by the Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural failures and misinterpretations, despite having addressed substantive objections raised in the Second Examination Report. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves issues of patent infringement, invalidity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance related to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Nokia against Oppo. The court has reserved judgment on injunction applications after extensive hearings.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh
The case involves a patent infringement action where the Plaintiff is enforcing rights in Indian patent no. IN240893 titled 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The patent relates to a method and apparatus for increasing subscriber capacity and enhancing base station performance.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Others
Qualcomm appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected their patent application (No. 5159/DELNP/2007) primarily citing Section 3(k) and lack of definitiveness. The High Court found that the rejection order suffered from manifest non-application of mind as it failed to address the appellant's submissions, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India & Anr.
This judgment addresses whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the authority to investigate a patent holder's conduct under the Competition Act, 2002. The court held that while both statutes deal with anti-competitive behavior, the specific legislative intent and subject matter dictate that the Patents Act, particularly Chapter XVI, governs patent rights, limiting CCI's power.
Communication Components Antena Inc. v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendants regarding patent IN240893, which relates to asymmetrical beams for spectrum efficiency. The defendants counter-claimed seeking revocation of the patent under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the remaining term of the patent was less than five years, the court directed summary adjudication.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit. Nokia claimed infringement based on its extensive portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) used by Oppo in smartphones. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, finding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out and directing Oppo to deposit the last paid amount attributable to India.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia appealed a single judge's order that dismissed its application for a pro-tem security deposit related to Nokia's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Nokia argued that infringement was prima facie established, and the balance of convenience favored granting interim relief. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corporation appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its patent application (No. 6168/DELNP/2013) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Controller for fresh consideration.
Ace Technologies Corp & Ors. v.Communication Components Antenna Inc.
This appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court, which restrained Ace Technologies Corp from manufacturing and selling antennae due to alleged infringement of Patent IN240893. The respondent claimed its patent covered a novel asymmetrical beam pattern for fixed antennas used in cellular networks. While the court found no grounds to interfere with the core interim relief, it modified the financial compliance terms, allowing the respondents to deposit a bank guarantee instead of cash.
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Pub)
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed cross-appeals concerning the validity and infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecom technology. The court affirmed that Ericsson's patents were prima facie essential and infringed, finding Intex to be an unwilling licensee. Despite arguments regarding SEPs being unknown in Indian law, the court upheld the necessity of FRAND compliance to ensure parity with global implementers.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Ericsson and Intex. The court examined whether the patents were essential, if Intex was infringing them, and if Intex had acted as an unwilling licensee despite Ericsson's FRAND commitments. Ultimately, the court found that the patents were prima facie valid and infringed, compelling Intex to pay the full royalty amount.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Nokia, holding several patents deemed Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for cellular technologies (2G-5G), filed an application seeking directions against Oppo. The dispute centered on whether Oppo's use of these patented standards required licensing under FRAND terms. The court dismissed Nokia's application, finding insufficient evidence to establish liability or justify the interim relief sought.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves Nokia Technologies Oy filing against Oppo and Vivo for patent infringement related to telecommunications technology. The hearings have focused on non-infringement and invalidity aspects of the patents.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
Sterlite Technologies Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Hfcl Limited for infringing its Indian Patent No. IN335369, which relates to optical fiber cables (OFCs). The defendant challenged the patent's validity and sought vacation of the ex-parte injunction. The court found serious doubt regarding the novelty and inventive nature of the suit patent.
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.