SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (01 Mar 2016)

Ericsson to reveal licensing agreements in confidentiality club

MANU/DE/0737/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

The Delhi High Court, hearing a patent dispute between Ericsson and Lava International granted Ericsson’s application to continue the matter under the veil of a ‘confidentiality club’. Simply put, such confidentiality measures are put in place during the course of legal proceedings to restrict the spread of sensitive information - in this case commercial information about licensing and pricing of patents pertaining to cellular transmission. Both parties will be restricted in the number of lawyers and experts who can peruse confidential information and are barred, unsurprisingly, from discussing the same in other legal proceedings or publicly.

The dispute between the companies hinges on Ericsson’s claim that Lava infringed several of its patents, used in mobile phones. The court will also have to determine if Ericsson charges licensees fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for its parcel of Standard Essential Patents. It is for the latter that Ericsson requested confidential proceedings, though Lava submitted that since licensing rates are not confidential information, it is indicative of unfair licensing practices.

Relevant : Mr. M. Sivasamy vs. Vestergaard Frandsen A/S and Ors. MANU/DE/1724/2009 MVF 3 APS & Ors. vs. M. Sivasamy & Ors. MANU/DE/5492/2012

Tags : CELLULAR   FRAND   LICENSING RATE   CONFIDENTIALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved