Bombay High Court: ‘GIRNAR’ a Well Known Trademark in India  ||  Kerala HC: Criminal Courts of District Judiciary Cannot Recall their Earlier Orders  ||  Madras HC: Only ‘Preponderance of Probability’ Required in Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Raj HC: Non-Disclosure of Information Wasn’t a Ground for Disqualification Before 2015 Amendment Act  ||  Bom. HC: Workers in Statutory Canteens are Principal Employer’s Employees  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  SC Refuses to Mark Presence of Advocate Who Did Not Argue the Matter  ||  SC Sets Aside HC’s Decision to Accept Aadhaar Card as a Proof of Date of Birth  ||  SC Permits Candidate with Blindness to Attend Interview for Selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved