Manmohan Singh JUDGMENT
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patents, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. against the defendant.
2. The suit as well as interim application were listed before Court on 21st August, 2015. I heard the interim application and kept for orders for today. After the arguments addressed by both the parties, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant sought time to take instructions from his client as to whether the defendant is willing to sit with the representative of the plaintiff and discuss the matter about the execution of FRAND agreement.
3. When the matter is taken up today at 12:50 pm, learned counsel for the plaintiff has informed that no communication was received from the defendant for the purpose of discussion of the matter. Therefore, the order be pronounced. It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff has to provide all the details and documents and satisfy the defendant as to whether these are the standard essential patents and the defendant is guilty of infringement, if any. In the absence thereof, it would be difficult to sign either NDA or FRAND Agreements. Counsel for the plaintiff is not agreeable for the said suggestion mainly on the reason that all the essential information has already been supplied. Even the defendant is not agreeable to sign the NDA agreement. Therefore, the defendant is merely dragging the proceeding. Left with no option the order will be pronounced after lunch.
4. At this stage counsel for defendant has handed over the written submissions in Court. However, all the submissions mentioned cannot be considered now as order is already finalised by this Court coupled with the fact that in the written submissions additional arguments are mentioned which were not addressed at the time of hearing the interim application. This Court is of the view that the same ought to have been filed earlier.
5. Let me now discuss the matter on the issue of interim order as prayed for.
6. The suit patents relate to three technologies in the field of telecommunications pertaining inter alia to 2G, EDGE and 3G devices (mobile handsets, tablets, dongles etc.), details of which are as under:-
(a) Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec - a feature that conserves use of bandwidth and enhances speech quality; (AMR)
(b) Features in 3G phones - Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station & A mobile radio for use in a mobile radio communication system; (3G)
(c) Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) - A transceiving unit for block automatic retransmission request; (EDGE)
7. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit patents have corresponding registered patents in several countries of the world. These technologies are essential for mobile devices (handsets, tablets, dongles etc.) to interoperate with network equipment, as per the standards prescribed by international standardization bodies that have been adopted and implemented in India by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) qua AMR, 3G and EDGE enabled devices. Copies of declarations made by the plaintiff to ETSI have been filed and claim charts mapping the suit patents to concerned technical specifications of relevant standards have been filed in a sealed cover.
8. Prior to the suit, the defendant instituted a complaint before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging that the plaintiff being the owner of Standard Essential Patents (which are necessarily required to be used by any party manufacturing, selling, offering for sale etc. telecommunication devices) has abused its dominant position.
9. On 12th May, 2015, the CCI p........