Manmohan Singh JUDGMENT
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. After framing of issues on 3rd February, 2016 and before directions for trial, the above mentioned application was pending which is filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking constitution of a confidentiality club.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants seeking inter alia to restrain violation and infringement of its rights in its patent being :
i. IN 203034 titled as "Linear Predictive Analysis by synthesis encoding method and encoder";
ii. IN 203036 titled as "Apparatus of producing from an original speech signal a plurality of parameters";
iii. IN 234157 titled as "A method of encoding/decoding multi- codebook fixed bitrate CELP signal block";
iv. IN 203686 titled as "Method and system for alternating transmission of codec mode information";
v. IN 213723 titled as "Method and apparatus for generating comfort noise in a speech decoder";
vi. IN 229632 titled as "Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station";
vii. IN 240471 titled as "A mobile radio for use in a mobile radio communication system";
viii. IN 241747 titled as "A transceiving omit unit for block automatic retransmission request".
3. One of the issues as framed by this Court pertains to the determination as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree declaring that the rates offered by the plaintiff qua its portfolio of Standard Essential Patents are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) in nature as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, this Court would also be determining as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or account of profits from the defendant for sales made by it devices infringing the plaintiff's patented technology and if so, on what terms and for what period.
4. It is contended by the plaintiff that in order to discharge its onus as required by this Court's order and in order to fully assist this Court in determining both the aforesaid issues, the plaintiff would be producing various patent licensing agreements with similarly placed parties, including competitors of the defendant.
5. It is claimed that these agreements are confidential in nature and contain, apart from licensing rates, business sensitive information, relating to such similarly placed parties. It is most respectfully submitted that in light of the facts of the present case and allegations made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The aforesaid licensing agreements of similarly placed parties are necessary to determine the issues framed in the present case.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is seeking the constitution of a confidentiality club by way of the present application.
7. In reply the prayer is opposed by defendant inter alia on the following grounds:-
a) The plaintiff has refused to disclose any agreements to the defendant during FRAND negotiations despite repeated requests and has maintained the present suit on the basis that for the defendant to agree to a FRAND rate these confidential agreements are not necessary and all information relevant to entering into a FRAND license was provided to the defendant. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to improve its case at this stage by seeking to produce the documents.
b) The stage for the plaintiff to produce documents has passed and the application is belated and ought to have been filed at time of filing the plaint, or at best the replication to written statement in terms of Order XI Rule (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
c) Any permission to produce the documents would only result in a delay in the trial of the case as the defendant would necessarily have........