Delhi high court rules in favour of Ericsson in a case against iBall
Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 2nd September, ordered an interim injunction on domestic handset manufacturer iBall from importing mobile handsets and other devices that infringe Swedish telecom equipment manufacturer Ericsson’s registered patents.
Ericsson has sued iBall on the grounds that the company had failed to agree to sign licensing agreement on the standard-essential patents, it had alleged that iBall has not entered into a licensing agreement under the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. FRAND is a global norm under which patent holders agree to allow licensees the right to use patented technology.
The suit patents relate to three technologies in the field of telecommunications pertaining inter alia to 2G, EDGE and 3G devices (mobile handsets, tablets, dongles etc.), details of which are as under:- (a) Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec – a feature that conserves use of bandwidth and enhances speech quality; (AMR) (b) Features in 3G phones – Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station & A mobile radio for use in a mobile radio communication system; (3G) (c) Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) – A transceiving unit for block automatic retransmission request; (EDGE)
Pronouncing the judgment in favor of Ericsson, Justice Manmohan Singh said “I am of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and balance of convenience also lies in its favour. If the interim direction/ order is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury because of the reason that the defendant would keep on marketing the mobile devices without the FRAND agreement and without paying any royalty.”
Earlier, on similar grounds the Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of Ericsson in November 2014 in its fight against Micromax. As per it, Micromax was asked to pay a royalty that amounts up to 1% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson for using its patents on technologies that are essential to manufacture the products.
Judgement: Ericsson Vs iBall
