{"id":278052,"date":"2022-11-25T17:00:07","date_gmt":"2022-11-25T11:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=278052"},"modified":"2022-11-30T10:20:22","modified_gmt":"2022-11-30T04:50:22","slug":"delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia’s plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court<\/b>: In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10<\/a> of CPC<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held that the FRAND Agreement between Nokia and Oppo was on a counter-licensing basis and did not indicate any admission by Oppo of any liability towards Nokia. Therefore, Oppo cannot be directed to pay royalty to Nokia.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Plaintiff (Nokia) was the holder of various patents, and the present suit was related to its three patents: (a) System and Method for Providing AMR-WB DTX Synchronization; (b) Method Providing Multiplexing for Data Non-Associated Control Channel; and (c) Additional Modulation Information Signaling for High-Speed Downlink Packet Access. According to Nokia, the three suit patents were Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which were necessary for the technology to work and for making cellular systems 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G compliant.<\/p>\n

Nokia stated that defendant (Oppo) in its cellular handsets employed 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G technology and used the technology in Nokia’s three SEPs. To support the contention that Oppo was using Nokia’s suit patents, Nokia had filed ‘Claim Mapping Charts’, which mapped each element of the claim to sections of the third-generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications which formed the basis of wireless telecommunications standards developed within the framework of the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI). Moreover, for a patent, to qualify as a SEP, it must map onto a standard set by the ETSI. If the technology used by Oppo and the suit patents both map onto the same standard in the ETSI, it could lead to a legitimate inference that Oppo’s technology infringed Nokia’s patents.<\/p>\n

In the present case, Nokia requested this Court to direct Oppo to deposit, with this Court, an amount which, according to Nokia, would represent the royalty, at Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rates, on payment of which Oppo could be granted a license to use the suit patents of Nokia.<\/p>\n

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff<\/b><\/p>\n

Nokia contended that Oppo had obtained a license from Nokia for utilizing Nokia‘s SEPs, by paying royalty at FRAND rates and that license had expired in 2021. Oppo had neither renewed the license agreement nor had taken any fresh license from Nokia, therefore, Nokia stated that the continued use by Oppo of Nokia’s SEPs was infringing in nature. Therefore, Nokia filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 and asserted that Oppo must be restrained from continuing to infringe the suit patents of Nokia or an alternative interlocutory arrangement be made. Further, Nokia had offered a license to Oppo to use the suit patents at royalty rates which were FRAND, but Oppo had failed to accept this offer.<\/p>\n

Submissions on behalf of the Defendants<\/b><\/p>\n

Oppo submitted that in cases involving SEPs, Nokia was required to demonstrate, assuming that it had been able to establish that the suit patents were indeed SEPs and that Oppo was using the said patents in its devices, that (i) the royalty rates at which license was being offered by Nokia was FRAND and (ii) Oppo was unwilling to take a license at such rates.<\/p>\n

Any examination of whether the rates at which licenses were offered by Nokia were FRAND would require the Court to examine third party licensing agreements and since no such third-party licensing agreement were placed on record by Nokia, Oppo contended that the most basic parameters, which this Court would have to examine to assure itself that Nokia was offering the license to Oppo to exploit the suit patents were in fact FRAND, were absent in the present case. Besides this, Oppo submitted that FRAND rate determination was a complex exercise which requires consideration of expert evidence and a trial, among other factors.<\/p>\n

Further, Oppo submitted that it had always been willing to take a FRAND license from Nokia representing the true value of its patent, but that value had never been established by Nokia either during pre-suit communications or even during the pendency of the present suit. Therefore, Oppo contended the validity and essentiality of the suit patents.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court noted that in the present case, the following three issues arise for consideration, whether:<\/p>\n

a. asserted suit patent was in fact a SEP;<\/p>\n

b. technology used by Oppo infringed the SEP;<\/p>\n

c. royalty rate at which Nokia was willing to license its SEP was FRAND;<\/p>\n

d. Oppo was unwilling to take the license at the said FRAND rate.<\/p>\n

Thus, unless all these four factors exist, this Court cannot direct Oppo to pay any amount as royalty to Nokia for obtaining a license from Nokia for exploiting the suit patents.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the entire application was fundamentally misconceived, and the FRAND Agreement was on counter-licensing basis and did not, indicate any admission, by Oppo, of any liability towards Nokia, and in the absence of a corresponding liability of Nokia towards Oppo, the Court cannot direct Oppo for interim payment under Order 39 Rule 10<\/a> of CPC<\/a>. Moreover, the Court opined that Oppo had reserved its right to question the essentiality of the suit patents and the liability of Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia for the exploitation at any rate.<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the application filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of the CPC.<\/p>\n

[Nokia Technologies OY v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corpn. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4014<\/a>, decided on 17-11-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Plaintiff(s): Senior Advocate Gourab Banerjee;<\/p>\n

Advocate Pravin Anand;<\/p>\n

Advocate Vaishali Mittal;<\/p>\n

Advocate Siddhant Chamola;<\/p>\n

Advocate Rohin Koolwal;<\/p>\n

Advocate Pallavi Bhatnagar;<\/p>\n

Advocate Shraddha Chauhan;<\/p>\n

For the Defendant(s): Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal;<\/p>\n

Advocate Sidharth Chopra;<\/p>\n

Advocate Julien George;<\/p>\n

Advocate Anu Paarcha;<\/p>\n

Advocate Arjun Gadhoke;<\/p>\n

Advocate Vivek Ayyagari;<\/p>\n

Advocate Avijit Kumar;<\/p>\n

Advocate Aniruddh Bhatia;<\/p>\n

Advocate Skanda Shekhar.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":278068,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2998,53185,53186,29846,3215,53187,3301,30326,53188,53189,53190,3554,33403,50145,4041],"class_list":["post-278052","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Agreement","tag-counter-licensing","tag-essentiality","tag-exploitation","tag-infringement","tag-interlocutory-arrangement","tag-liability","tag-license","tag-nokia","tag-oppo","tag-order-39-rule-10","tag-patent","tag-royalty","tag-standard-essential-patents","tag-validity"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-11-25T11:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-11-30T04:50:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"311\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-11-25T11:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-11-30T04:50:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg\",\"width\":391,\"height\":311,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court denies Nokia’s plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case | SCC Times","description":"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case","og_description":"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-11-25T11:30:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-11-30T04:50:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":391,"height":311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","name":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia's plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg","datePublished":"2022-11-25T11:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2022-11-30T04:50:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg","width":391,"height":311,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia’s plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":334594,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/07\/raj-hc-dis-execution-proceeding-arrest-warrant-against-nokia-solutions-networks-india-ltd-an-uninvolved-party-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":0},"title":"Rajasthan High Court dismisses Execution Proceeding & arrest warrant against Nokia Solutions & Networks India (P) Ltd, an uninvolved party","author":"Ritu","date":"November 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act penalties are intended for parties responsible for complying with a Commission\u2019s order and as the petitioner was not involved in the transaction or compliance, the proceedings against them were without basis.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":319605,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/06\/dhc-awards-rs-244-crore-damages-to-ericsson-against-lava-for-patent-infringement-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court awards Rs 244 crore damages to Ericsson against Lava for infringement of its Standard Essential Patents","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The present case has highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between protecting fair access to standardized technologies and protecting intellectual property rights.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/11\/delhi-hc-revocation-petition-u-s-64-patents-act-is-not-a-suit-within-the-meaning-s10-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":2},"title":"Revocation Petition under Section 64 of Patents Act is not a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of CPC: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235028,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/28\/uk-sc-whether-a-court-in-the-united-kingdom-has-jurisdiction-to-grant-an-injunction-to-restrain-the-infringement-of-a-uk-patent-detailed-report\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":3},"title":"UK SC | Whether a court in the United Kingdom has jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain the infringement of a UK patent? [Detailed Report]","author":"Editor","date":"August 28, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: While deciding the instant appeal raising questions important to the international market in telecommunications such as - Whether a court in the United Kingdom has jurisdiction and may properly exercise a power, without the agreement of both parties to grant an injunction to restrain\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298994,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/10\/delhi-hc-power-transfer-proceedings-between-high-courts-is-exclusively-vested-in-the-sc-u-s25-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":4},"title":"Power to transfer proceedings between High Courts u\/s 25 of CPC is exclusively vested in Supreme Court: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Delhi High Court cannot exercise power to transfer proceedings between two separate High Courts as the said power of transfer between two High Courts, can be exercised in terms of Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by only the Supreme Court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":234394,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/21\/more-power-to-cci-the-delhi-hc-upholds-the-ccis-jurisdiction-to-probe-against-monsantos-abusive-practices\/","url_meta":{"origin":278052,"position":5},"title":"More Power to CCI \u2014 The Delhi HC upholds the CCIs Jurisdiction to probe against Monsanto\u2019s abusive practices","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Anshuman Sakle, Partner, Ruchi Verma, Associate and Nandini Pahari,Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Cite as: (2020) PL (Comp. L) July 61","rel":"","context":"In "Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas"","block_context":{"text":"Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/law-firm\/cam\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278052","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=278052"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278052\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/278068"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=278052"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=278052"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=278052"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}