Telecom — India Patent Cases
108 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 4 · 108 total
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
The plaintiff (Ericsson) filed a suit for infringement of registered patents against the defendant (Lava International). The court, following directions from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial, addressed an application by the defendant seeking to amend the witness list and change the trial schedule due to the unavailability of expert witnesses. The court granted a conditional adjournment.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Xiaomi Technology & Ors
Ericsson sued Xiaomi for infringing several patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technology used in mobile devices. The defendants filed an application seeking vacation of a prior interim injunction by alleging concealment of material facts. The court found that Ericsson failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications, leading to the vacation of the interim order concerning two specific patents.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v.Competition Commission Of India
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson challenged the orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had initiated investigations based on complaints from Micromax and Intex. The core dispute revolved around whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine claims related to royalty payments for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Ericsson argued that patent-related royalty issues fall exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970, not the Competition Act, 2002. The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in this context.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.M/S Best It World (India) Private Limited (iBall)
Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against iBall for infringing its patents related to AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies. The court considered arguments regarding the execution of a FRAND agreement and the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents.
M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited v.M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)
Best IT World (iBall) filed an information alleging that Ericsson, a major holder of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), was abusing its dominant position. The allegations included refusal to identify infringed patents, forcing the Informant into onerous Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and imposing royalty rates contrary to FRAND terms.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Intex Technologies (India) Limited
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Intex Technologies (India) Limited for infringing eight patents related to advanced telecommunication technologies, specifically AMR, 3G, and EDGE. The Delhi High Court addressed an interim application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The court granted several stringent interim orders, including restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling infringing devices and directing Customs authorities not to allow the import of such products.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc. v.Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of their patent (IN 200572) related to mobile communication handover decisions by the defendants, who manufacture and sell telecommunications equipment like Base Station Controllers. The court disposed of the application regarding the ad interim stay.
NTT DoCoMo Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office; The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office; The Union of India
NTT DoCoMo Inc. challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to revive its Patent Application No.4851/CHENP/2007. The application was mistakenly withdrawn due to a clerical error committed by the petitioner's erstwhile patent attorneys, who interchanged the numbers of two related applications. The court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an innocent party and should not suffer injustice.
Intex Technologies (India) Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Intex Technologies (Informant) alleged that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Opposite Party), a major SEP holder in mobile communication, was demanding excessive and unfair royalty rates for licensing its patents. The Informant also complained about the use of NDAs and foreign jurisdiction clauses which restricted their ability to seek redressal.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Mercury Electronics & Anr.
Ericsson filed an application seeking permission to file affidavits and a claim chart mapping in a sealed envelope, arguing that this was necessary to demonstrate how its patented AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies were infringed by Mercury Electronics and Micromax. The court permitted Ericsson to file the documents while keeping them under safe custody for joint inspection.
Micromax Informatics Limited v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)
Micromax Informatics Limited filed a complaint alleging that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was abusing its dominant position by demanding unfair, discriminatory, and exorbitant royalty rates for essential GSM patents. The Commission examined the allegations regarding excessive pricing based on the sale price of the product rather than the value of the technology.
Ten Xc Wireless Inc v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen)
Ten Xc Wireless Inc filed two suits seeking permanent injunctions and damages against various defendants, alleging infringement of its registered patent (IN 240893) related to 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency' used in Bi-Sector Array Antennas. The core dispute revolves around the use of asymmetric beam patterns in wireless communication systems. Although the plaintiffs sought interim injunctions, the court deferred a decision on costs because the defendants had raised credible challenges regarding the patent's validity, which must be examined during the trial.
Tenxc Wireless Inc. v.Andrewcomm. Scope Inc.
The suit was filed by Tenxc Wireless Inc. against Andrewcomm. Scope Inc. for patent infringement concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The defendant challenged an interim stay order, arguing that the plaintiff had made false and misleading statements in the plaint. The court found merit in the defense's arguments regarding the misstatements and vacated the interim injunction.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ericsson challenged the decision by the Controller of Patents which declared its patent application 'deemed to have been abandoned' under Section 21(1) after repeated objections. The petitioner argued that it had complied with all requirements and was denied an opportunity of being heard. The Court found that the basic condition for abandonment was non-existent, setting aside the order.
S. Ram Kumar v.Micromax Informatics Limited
S. Ram Kumar (appellant/patent holder) challenged a District Judge's order which granted an interim injunction restraining him from preventing or hindering the import and sale of dual SIM card phones, infringing his patent. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that given the IPAB was already involved in the matter, the balance of convenience favored the respondent (Micromax Informatics Limited).
ADC GmbH v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd.
The plaintiffs, including ADC GmbH and Krone Communication Ltd., filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt.) Ltd. alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling junction box casings identical to those protected by Indian Patent No.164857. The court found the defendant guilty of infringement.
Krone Aktingesellschaft And Anr. v.Kartik Telecomptrols (Pvt) Ltd.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their Indian Patent No. 164857 related to junction-box casings for telecommunications engineering. The defendant challenged the patent's validity, arguing it was not new and had been publicly known or used prior to the priority date.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
The Delhi High Court directed the defendants to deposit a sum or submit an unconditional bank guarantee as pro-tem security payment in a patent infringement case related to wireless communication technology. The plaintiffs, Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc, claimed that their technological innovations were protected by over 31,500 patents and applications worldwide. The defendants, Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd, were engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling smartphones under various brands.
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.