Comments
The Delhi High Court has restrained iBall from importing mobile handsets and other devices (including tablets), that infringe Swedish telecom equipment manufacturer Ericsson’s registered patents.
The interim order, which becomes operative from September 9, is effective till the next date of hearing.
Ericsson’s allegations Ericsson had sued iBall on grounds that the company had failed to agree to sign a license agreement on standard-essential patents, required for making mobile phones and other devices.
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. In iBall’s case, this covered patents on wireless technology standards such as GSM, EDGE and third generation.
Pronouncing the interim order, Justice Manmohan Singh said, “I am of the view that Ericsson has made a prima facie case in its favour and the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. If the interim direction/order is not granted, Ericsson will suffer irreparable loss and injury for the reason that iBall will keep marketing mobile devices without the FRAND agreement and without paying royalty.”
At the last hearing on August 21, lawyers for iBall had sought time to take instructions from iBall as to whether the firm was willing to sit with the representative of Ericsson and discuss the matter. However, by the September 2 hearing, no communication was received from iBall.
iBall’s response iBall cited the recent Huawei vs ZTE decision to argue that Ericsson had not provided enough information and thus the suit could not proceed.
Ericsson submitted that iBall had admitted the essentiality of Ericsson’s patents numerous times in its complaint to the CCI.
“I am of the prima facie view that the plea of iBall, that it was not aware about the rights claimed by Ericsson, has no force in the light of the averments made and documents filed by Ericsson. The suit filed by Ericsson is not pre-matured and is maintainable,” the court said.
Ericsson had filed a similar case against Micromax, in which the court had ordered the Indian handset maker to pay royalty as an interim measure.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.