In a recent landmark ruling, The Delhi High Court is inLAVAInternational limited company (LAVA) vTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) Order in the caseLAVAtoERICSSONpayment244Indian rupees crore (about2990Ten thousand dollars) and5%Annual interest, As a result ofLAVAviolatedERICSSONthe2Gand3Gpatent. This amount is considered in India in relation to standard essential patents (SEP) One of the highest damages awarded in a patent infringement lawsuit.

SEPintro

Technological advances have changed the face of India's mobile communications industry. from1900The era of popular clunky analog phones to the use of state-of-the-art smartphones, Technology has come a long way. To keep up with the development of mobile phones, Telecommunications networks are also from2GSystem development to3G, 4G LTEand5GAnd other high-speed data networks, Thus facilitating the smooth communication. The realization of this process of change is inseparable "Standard" The formulation and implementation of.

The standard is defined as "Secure the product, Agreed specifications or agreements for compatibility and interoperation of services and systems in various environments and technologies" . Standard setting organization (SSO) Ensure that innovations in mobile communications are universal, Enable consumers around the world to benefit from the latest technological advances. therefore, Cell phone, Tablet computer, Dongles and others are included2G／3G／4G／5GManufacturers of telecommunications equipment with such functional components must comply with certain technical standards. These technical standards are available only through the use of certain things calledSEPThe patent can be realized.

LAVAV. Ericsson: Cross-litigation background

2015years, LAVA (plaintiff) At the Noida District Court (CS (OS) 01/2015) Sue Ericsson (defendant) , Alleges that defendants did not provide their standard essential patents at fair licensing fees (SEP) .

2016Years later, inTelefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vLAVA International LtdIn the case, Ericsson in the Delhi High Court vsLAVAFile a lawsuit, Claims that Ericsson has been deemedSEPPatent for, And indicate all matches2G, EDGEor3GThe manufacturer of the technology's equipment or device will use Ericsson's patented technology. Ericsson claims, LAVAIn the absenceFRANDWith permission, Used in its equipment3Gand2GHit the markAMRTechnology andEDGEFeature, Infringed its patent rights.

Ericsson further argues, It has worked hard withLAVANegotiated equity, Reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) License rate, But the Indian smartphone maker would not agree to the terms. Ericsson is unhappy with its actions, File a patent infringement suit in court, Asking for a permanent injunction, prohibitLAVA "manufacture／assemble, entrance, sell, Offer for sale, Including the promotion of products containing its patents through its website and third party websites (Telephone equipment, Cell phone, Tablet or any future model) " . The Delhi High Court also held that "LAVABe liable for infringement, And passed an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, Prohibition of manufacture, entrance, sell, Offering to sell equipment that infringes the plaintiff's patented technology, Including telephone, Tablet computer, dongle" .

Case facts

LAVAAnd the cross-lawsuit between EricssonCS (COMM) 65/2016andCS (COMM) 1148/2016. The defendants licensed their patents to companies engaged in the sale and manufacture of telecommunications equipment. In the defendant's global patent portfolio, Most are used by standards development organizations (SSO) The formulation of various standardsSEP. The defendant alleges, The plaintiff has no basisFRANDPrinciples obtained from the defendant in case of any permission to use the defendant'sSEP. The defendant further claims that, They have asked the plaintiff to negotiate, And propose in accordance withFRANDClause to allow the plaintiffSEP, But the plaintiff ignored the defendant's request, Continued production of equipment without permission, Thereby infringing the defendant's patent rights.

Plaintiff argues, Failure of the defendant, Disclose it fairlySEP, Also failed to provide itSEPtheFRANDLicense clause, And further argue, On the basis of1970years "Patent law" Clause of, The defendant's patent is invalid and unnecessary.

The Court adopted Ericsson vINTEXThe two-step test method established in the case. The test involves mapping the patent to the standard to determine if it isSEP, Then verify that the implementer's equipment also meets this standard. After this review, The court found that the plaintiff's equipment met the standards set out by the defendant in the lawsuit. The Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that an authorized entity imported mobile phones into India without obtaining a patent license from the defendant. merely, The court emphasized, The responsibility for paying licensing fees to the patent owner rests with the brand owner who sells the device to the end consumer, Not the manufacturer.

problem

·The issues involved in the two lawsuits were combined, To determine whether Ericsson has the rightLAVASmartphones are importantSEP?

·Whether the defendant violated any necessary patent licensing norms?

·Determination of appropriate compensation?

Determination of patent infringement and damages

LAVAassert, "Top-down method" Is the preferred method of calculating damages, Instead of "Comparative licensing" . LAVACiting the Patent Court of England and Wales inUnwired PlanetThe ruling in the case supports this argument.

Contrary to this, Ericsson says, Licenses of a similar nature have a significant impact on determining royalty rates for patents. Ericsson believes, These similar permits provide valuable evidence, Can be used to determineFRANDrate.

The court decides to use "Similar licensing method" To determine the pending license fee, The focus is on similar licensors, Instead of "Top to bottom approach" . In terms of actual usage rates, The court found that Ericsson's offer was in "FRAND" Within the scope of, And to other andLAVAIndian companies of comparable size offer similar rates. In addition, Judge Ami．Bansal (Amit Bansal) Be sure of, Ericsson8A standard essential patent (SEP) Have. . . in7Term valid, only1Invalid term. therefore, Royalty rates must be reassessed, To account for this weakened patent portfolio.

conclusion

Ericsson requirementsLAVAPay from2011years11Ericsson made its first contact with the smartphone maker in October2020years5Full royalties until the expiration of Ericsson's last patent, And for violating it2Gand3GPatents while paying Ericsson more than2. 44Indian rupees crore (about2990Ten thousand dollars) compensation. In addition, LAVAThey also have to bear the costs incurred in the litigation process. (Be compiled fromwww. lexology. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wu Xian　proofread: Wang Dan



　　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.