Page 36 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 36
had in the past met and exchanged effect upon the manner in which these
correspondence extensively for the technologies function thereby resulting
purpose of negotiating a license under in practical implementation and actual
FRAND conditions. If the suit patents physical representation.” It was further
were wholly invalid, the Defendant held that “Mere mention of an algorithm
would not negotiate for so long for a or a mathematical formula in a patent
license. Therefore, the current challenge document should not be inferred to
of the Defendant on the validity of the mean that the invention is nothing but
suit patent is a sham. an algorithm. The similar issue has
b. Further, the sole intention of the already been dealt by this court in a
Defendant was to avoid execution of a suit filed against INTEX in great details
FRAND license agreement till the final wherein the arguments of doubtfulness
stage which exemplifies Defendant’s lack were rejected. Thus, no different view is
of good faith . The Defendant avoided possible in the present case.”
the license as much as possible and then
filed a suit at a Court in Noida, a few days The Court held that prima facie, it appears,
prior to a meeting scheduled between that the inventions have resulted in a technical
the two parties, to avoid the liability of advancement in the field of telecommunication
entering into a license agreement. This technologies and have had a huge impact on the
conduct shows that the Defendant is way in which these technologies function.
unwilling to take a FRAND license in The Court held that, the ultimate object of the
respect of the Plaintiff’s SEPs. Thus, the invention is an efficient encoder meaning that
Defendant is liable to be refrained from the synthesized speech quality in relation to
its infringing activities. radio resource needed for transmission is as
high as possible. The Court noted that speech
4. Whether the suit patents are prima facie quality is an effect perceptible by the humans
valid? and is not just as abstract entity
a. The Court held that prima facie, it
appears, that the inventions have resulted c. The Court also held that product patents
in a technical advancement in the field cannot be labelled as algorithm because
of telecommunication technologies and they are not a set of instructions and
have had a huge impact on the way in are not theoretical in nature. The Court
which these technologies function. concluded that the patents are not hit by
b. The Court held that, the ultimate object section 3(k) and that the Defendant has
of the invention is an efficient encoder failed to raise any credible challenge to
meaning that the synthesized speech the suit patents.
quality in relation to radio resource
needed for transmission is as high as 5. Whether a prima facie case has been
possible. The Court noted that speech made out by the Plaintiff for grant of an
quality is an effect perceptible by the injunction?
humans and is not just as abstract entity. a. The Court held that the Defendant has
The judge pronounced that: “Prima facie, been consistently delaying execution of
it appears that these inventions which have the agreement with the Plaintiff. Patent
resulted in an improvement (technical rights, unlike trademarks rights are
advancement) in telecommunication limited. Patents can be asserted only
technologies and have had a huge after grant and it takes a long time for
36 | Patents & Design
