Page 33 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 33
description is erroneous. The decision can be accessed at: -
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/
4. The Indian Patent Office and the United States SAS/judgement/21-09-2016/
Patent Office have granted the patent and have SAS19092016FAOOS2922014.pdf
found that the patent non-obvious. Since these
expert bodies have found the patent to be non –
obvious, the burden of proof on the Defendant
to establish a credible challenge is even greater.
DELHI HIGH COURT REFUSES TO STAY ANTI-
COMPETITIVE INVESTIGATION AGAINST
ERICSSON over the allegations on royalty as the matter falls
under the Patents Act, 1970.
On 4th March 2013, Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (hereinafter referred to as The Delhi High Court judgment by Justice Vibhu
Ericsson) filed a patent infringement suit Bakhru dated March 30, 2016 states that the CCI
against Micromax alleging that 8 of the SEPs held can continue to carry out its investigation into
by it in 2G and 3G devices were being infringed by Ericsson’s apparent anti-competitive practices.
Micromax. In November 2013, Micromax and Intex The facts of this case are as follows:
filed a complaint with the Competition Commission
of India (CCI) alleging that Ericsson was abusing its
The Court reasoned that Patent Law and Anti- 1. Micromax and Intex complained to the CCI
trust law are not mutually exclusive as both may about Ericsson’s abuse of dominance by way of
offer redressals, albeit fundamentally different, demanding huge amount of royalties in respect
for the same grievance. Thus, two simultaneous of the SEPs that it holds, refusing to disclose
suits for the same grievance could lie in the two licensing terms with other licensees and
tribunals and the authority of the CCI to adjudge aggressively enforcing their patents to force
the matter despite a suit being pending in front of parties to settle on unfavourable licensing
the Controller was not disputable. terms.
dominant position in the market by not adhering to 2. Ericsson moved to the Delhi High Court to
FRAND terms and extracting exorbitant amount of prevent this investigation and quash CCI’s
royalties, in spite of being bound by ETSI Property order. Ericsson claims that its SEPs are being
Rights Policy and by extension the FRAND Terms. infringed by Micromax and Intex.
Following an ad interim injunction against Micromax
on selling, importing and manufacturing of mobile 3. Ericsson contended that any issue regarding a
phones using the controversial technology, the two claim for royalty falls within the scope of Patents
parties agreed to enter into an agreement under Act, 1970 and not under the Competition Act.
which Micromax agreed to pay interim royalty . A
trial date for December 2015 was set thereafter. Following were the teachings propounded by the
judgement:
A writ petition was filed by Ericsson in the Delhi
High Court against an order of the CCI under 1. The Patents Act is a special legislation
Section 26(1) directing the Director General to compared to the Competition Act for patents
investigate the allegations of anti-competitive and provides for prevention of abuse of patents
practices levied on Ericsson by Micromax and Intex. under Chapter XVI and Section 140.
Ericsson alleged that the CCI has no jurisdiction
Patents & Design | 33
