Page 39 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 39
parties, the Court adjudged that even though between Xiaomi and Qualcomm, none of the parties
Ericsson was aware that Xiaomi was using produced their respective agreements on record.
Qualcomm’s chipset in its handsets, its agreement Acceding to Xiaomi’s contention that a party seeking
with Qualcomm was not disclosed to the Court. an ex-parte order has a heightened duty to disclose
However, Ericsson is correct in its stand that Xiaomi all material the Court vacated the interim injunction
is incorrectly attempting to enlarge the scope of order with respect to the two patented pertaining
the agreement to all eight suit patents. Therefore, to CDMA technology.
the Court decided to confine its stand to the two
patents relating to CDMA (3G) technology. The The order can be accessed here:-
Court further held that even though the Division http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VKR/
Bench had held that the limited area of dispute in judgement/23-04-2016/VKR22042016S37752014.
the suit relates to interpretation of the agreement pdf
between Ericsson and Qualcomm and probably
NUZIVEEDU RESTRAINED FROM SELLING BT.
COTTON b. All seeds manufactured but not packed by
the Defendant prior to 30th November 2015,
The Plaintiff, Monsanto Technology LLC could be sold by the Defendant only if certified
sued the Defendant, Nuziveedu seeds for by the Local Commissioner appointed by the
infringement of its Trademarks Bollguard/ Court (based on relevant records provided by
BG and Bollguard-II/BG-II and its Patent IN 214436 the Defendant) as having been manufactured
in respect of genetically modified hybrid cotton up to 30th November 2015. Seeds not shown
seeds. The Defendant was earlier appointed the to be manufactured by 30th November 2015
Plaintiff’s sub-licensee to manufacture and sell the could not be sold.
seeds using the Plaintiff’s trademarks and patent.
c. The Defendant to pay royalty to the Plaintiff
The Court allowed the following: for the seeds which were permitted to be sold.
a. All seeds manufactured by the Defendant up The decision can be accessed at:-
to 30th November 2015 could be sold by http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.
the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s trademarks. asp?pn=71522&yr=2016
However, the Defendant was restrained from
selling all seeds manufactured by them after
30th November 2015.
Patents & Design | 39
