In an on-going case of Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd., the Delhi High Court had passed an interim order that prevents Lava from importing, exporting, manufacturing, and selling any mobile phones that use Ericsson’s patents and technology. Although this is binding only until a final order is passed, it seems unlikely that much of the order will be altered.
In an order similar to his judgement in the Intex case, Ericsson’s disputes with Micromax, Intex, Xiaomi and iBall, Justice Manmohan Singh found in Ericsson’s favour in almost all counts. Interestingly, this case dealt with exactly the same suit patents as in Intex and related to GSM (5 AMR), EDGE(1) and WCDMA/3G (2) technology. Due to this, it is difficult not to view the case to be, in effect, an appeal against the Intex order, as it concerns the same patents, and is being heard by the same judge. However, it’s not surprising that Lava has consistently maintained that their case was to be differentiated from Intex, and an impartial view needed to be taken.
This case consist of the discussion of Justice Manmohan’s interim order in the Lava case, and also the comparison it holds in intex.
Essentiality of Patents
Ericsson’s main allegation was that Lava’s phones utilize eight of its Standard Essential Patents (SEP’s), and that this was a clear case of infringement as there was no licensing agreement in place.
The Court affirmed that Ericsson was an the undisputed owner of the registered suit patents, and questioned whether the patents were in fact, SEP’s as claimed by Ericsson. While Lava’s defense was majorly prepared on the fact that Ericsson had not furnished the correct technical specifications, the Court disregarded their arguments, including expert witnesses provided by them, due to the material placed on record by Ericsson.
According to the court, Ericsson had sufficiently built prima facie case to prove the essentiality of the suit patents, by setting out the relevant standards, mapping said standards with claims, carrying out requisite tests where implementation was optional and necessary, providing expert affidavits.
In the Intex judgement, Justice Manmohan Singh concluded mentioning
Ericsson had placed sufficient material on record, with an aim of setting up infringement as well as the proof of essentiality of the suit patents, in the form of claim chart mapping that was supported by expert affidavits, along with test reports. He further pointed out, Intex had failed to submit any technical or scientific material to show even a prima facie case of invalidity or non-essentiality of the suit patents.
Justice Manmohan Singh slightly differed was when he had held Intex’s submissions to the CCI that argued regarding ownership and essentiality before the Court to have ‘no force’, he did not take as strong a view of Lava’s submissions in their Noida suit.
In 2011, when compared the court had noted that Ericsson approached Lava sign licensing agreement for the SEP’s in question, after which several meetings took place between the parties. Later, court recognised Lava’s consistent pleading for technical information relating to the patents even through Ericsson had, in their opinion, provided all that was required of them.
The Court found that Lava’s conduct amounted to nothing but a means to delay the execution of a FRAND license, and signified their unwillingness to conclude the same.
In stark contrast to Ericsson’s abuse of dominance – CCI dispute that is yet to be concluded, the Court importantly noted that it was Lava who had an unfair advantage in the market, by delaying FRAND determination, and not paying Ericsson royalties as Micromax, Gionee, Xiaomi and IBall currently are. This led the Court to conclude that Lava was an unwilling licensee, in light of their conduct in the negotiations, something that Justice Singh had labelled Intex to be as well
With regard to Section 3(k), Lava’s arguments of the patents being nothing but algorithms and hence not patentable was rejected by the Court. Following the Intex order, the Court held that the bar of 3(k) does not apply when algorithms are employed by hardware components to produce a technical function. The Court stated that the suit patents were not computer programmes per se, abstract algorithms, or mathematical methods, and that prima facie, the inventions had resulted in an improvement, a technical advancement, and resulted in actual physical representation.
Although Lava is not party to the CCI dispute, the decision will have major ramifications for them, as well as any other smartphone company in use of Ericsson’s patents. Another important development to be kept in mind in Ericsson’s unfolding SEP saga is the fact that the Delhi High Court found Ericsson to have concealed information pertaining to royalties that they were receiving from Qualcomm for two of the patents involved in this dispute as well. Such a charge must not be overlooked, and ideally should have been given more weight in the Lava order. Justice Singh merely mentioned it in passing, and even disregarded the Ericsson-Qualcomm agreement as relevant to the Lava dispute, as it was limited in scope, and could not be interpreted to exempt companies from entering into licensing agreements with Ericsson.
Since this case was not having any justified points, and mainly reiterates what was held in Intex, it will be interesting to see if there are any changes in the final order. While the Court had ordered Intex to pay 50 per cent of the royalties from the filing of the suit to Ericsson, it is slightly strange that the Court only mandated that Lava pay fifty thousand rupees to be deposited with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, besides passing the injunction order. The Court also provided Lava with the option of depositing fifty crores with the Court as security before the 20th of June, 2016, which would suspend the interim order until the case is finally decided upon; and directed Lava to file quarterly statements of accounts with the Court until the final order is passed.