Page 35 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 35
ERICSSON V LAVA SAGA that the Plaintiff has made general
declarations at various instances with
In 2015, Ericsson (Plaintiff) had sued Lava respect to AMR (GSM & UMTS), GPRS
(Defendant) for allegedly infringing various patents and WCDMA respectively.
in the field of telecommunications pertaining b. The Plaintiff has also filed with the Court
inter alia to 2G, EDGE and 3G devices (mobile copies of all general declarations made
handsets, tablets, dongles etc.). More specifically, by them and the Plaintiff has undertaken
the technologies covered by Ericsson’s patents are general FRAND commitment with
recognized as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) respect to any and all 2G and 3G
by the European Telecommunications Standards SEPs which includes the eight suit
Institute (ETSI). Lava challenged the validity and patents. The general declarations have
essentiality of Ericsson’s patents by claiming that: been downloaded from the database
maintained by ETSI thereby establishing
a. Patents owned by Ericsson were mainly that appropriate declarations with
algorithms and as such, were not patentable respect to the suit patents have indeed
under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, been made.
1970; and c. Detailed claim charts mapping the
claims into specific portions of relevant
b. Patents covered by Ericsson failed to disclose standards to establish essentiality have
any hardware elements and at best could be been placed on record by the Plaintiff.
described as software that could be run on a d. An Expert’s evidence confirming that
general purpose computer. the suit patents are SEPs has been filed.
e. Appropriate tests demonstrating
Thus, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiff compliance with relevant technology/
has taken all steps to establish essentiality of standard and establishing direct
the suit patents before the Court. The veracity infringement of its EDGE patents have
of the opinion of the Defendant’s Expert been submitted by the Plaintiff.
witnesses cannot be confirmed at this stage in f. It is a well settled principle of law that
light of the extensive material placed on record to confirm whether a device is infringing
by the Plaintiff. an essential patent, demonstrating
compliance with the concerned
The Delhi High Court arrived at the following standard by a device is sufficient.
findings from the arguments of the parties on the Thus, prima facie it appears that the
interim injunction application in its judgment dated Plaintiff has taken all steps to establish
10th June 2016: essentiality of the suit patents before
the Court. The veracity of the opinion
1. Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the of the Defendant’s Expert witnesses
suit patents? cannot be confirmed at this stage in
light of the extensive material placed on
The Plaintiff is the undisputed owner of the suit record by the Plaintiff.
patents which are standard patents being used
by all big mobile companies of the world under
FRAND agreement.
2. Whether the suit patents are standard 3. Whether the Defendant is willing to
essential patents? become a licensee of the Plaintiff?
a. A general internet search reveals a. The Plaintiff and the Defendant
Patents & Design | 35
