As early as 2014 years, Ericsson is suing local smartphone makers in India Intex Violated its relationship with 2G and 3G Equipment technology related 8 A standard essential patent (SEP) . The sole judge of the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Ericsson, And calculated fairness, Reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) The patent usage rate, And indicate Intex prepayment 50%Patent fee, and 50%Bank guarantee.

The judge found Ericsson's patent to be valid, needful, And be Intex infringement. In determining royalty rates for patent use, The court found that Ericsson had demonstrated compliance FRAND obligation, while Intex They are reluctant licensees.

therewith, On both sides 2018 Put forward 2 cross-appeal. Intex Do not agree to make it FRAND adjudication, Ericsson's appeal claims, On request Intex Pay the full patent fee, Instead of 50%Prepaid sum 50%Guarantee of. The full panel of the Delhi High Court has now handed down a landmark ruling on the appeal case.

Intex And Ericsson's argument

During oral arguments, Intex The need for Ericsson's patents has been questioned, The claim of necessity was not recognized［Intex To Competition Commission of India (CCI) A complaint was filed against Ericsson］, therefore, The onus is on Ericsson to prove the necessity and validity of its patents, But Ericsson is not proving it. Intex The company also noted, in SEP In question, If the implementer is an unwilling licensee, Can't be approved on that basis SEP All the injunction requests.

Aim at Intex The argument of, Ericsson stated that, Intex It came after years of lengthy negotiations CCI petitionary. During the negotiations, Ericsson direction Intex provided SEP Detailed list, Claim map and test report, All this proves it Intex Tort of conduct. Ericsson also used the European Court of Justice's opinion in the Huawei v. ZTE case to bolster its position, The European Court of Justice stated that, FRAND Protocol requirement "The alleged infringer" Get permission first, Only then can it remain challenging in subsequent stages SEP Right of validity and necessity.

Ericsson also proposed, Intex The company's accusation that the contested patent was invalid was an afterthought, In addressing the issue, the sole judge said: "After reviewing the defendant's objections and the plaintiff's reply, At first glance, Litigation patents are valid, The court did not find any credible defence by the accused. "

therefore, Intex There is no basis for questioning the validity and necessity at this stage. Ericsson pointed out to the court, It just wants to be properly compensated for all its research and development efforts, but Intex Is a reluctant licensee, Its failure to comply with the regulations was entirely deliberate.

sentence

After hearing both sides, The court admitted that certain foreign decisions were persuasive, And be willing to apply those lessons when necessary. The court dug deep SEP The meaning of, Its role in the modern economy, Type of standard, Standard setting organization, Function of law, permission, FRAND clause, SEP The obligations of all and FRAND Protocol etc.

After a detailed analysis of the existing system and careful consideration of judgements from around the world, The court disagreed Intex The view of, consider "Both an injunction and a temporary instruction to pay a user fee are effective remedies, Because it doesn't just slightly increase the cost of infringing products, And infringement will be completely prohibited" .

The court also stated that, "if SEP Everyone is prohibited from seeking an injunction, Then there is no reason for the infringer to consent or cooperate in good faith SEP Everyone negotiates the license" , This will also be given in the interim phase SEP All bring unnecessary burden, make SEP Everyone loses any incentive to innovate.

About infringement, The court adopted "indirect" Infringement test, Indicate if a patent maps to a standard, The defendant's device implemented that standard, Then the device clearly infringes the patent. The court held that, This test is proof SEP Infringement and necessity "Reliable and better method" . Even if an infringement of a patent is preliminarily established, An injunction can also be issued.

finally, The court held that, Intex In the direction CCI The complaint acknowledges that Ericsson's contested patents are the industry standard, And argued to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute that the patents were necessary, quote CCI The jurisdiction itself indicates Intex I knew I was infringing a contested patent.

finally, A panel of the Delhi High Court found that the patent was necessary and infringed, And the royalties determined by the sole judge are consistent FRAND clause. The collegiate panel also accepted Ericsson's appeal, indicate Intex Pay all patent fees.

The significance of the judgment

This decision makes SEP Everyone was relieved. The ruling also noted Britain, America, European Union, DEUTSCHLAND, Landmark judgments in countries such as the Netherlands, And discussed in detail SEP, Permissible sum FRAND All aspects of the terms, Restoring stakeholder confidence in India's legal framework and stimulating innovation. (Be compiled from www. managingip. com)

TRANSLATORS: Rason group　proofread: Liu Peng

disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.