Supreme Court Issues Directions to Speed Up MACT Claims Amid Six-Year Average Pendency  ||  Supreme Court: Sex Selection Practices Continues Due to Preference For Male Children  ||  Supreme Court: Injury From a Fallen Tree is Not a Motor Accident for MACT Claims  ||  Madras HC: Recent Tamil Nadu Elections Reflect Voting Beyond Caste and Community Considerations  ||  Supreme Court: Children Should Not Undergo Psychological Tests in Custody Cases Unless Necessary  ||  Jharkhand HC: Lokayukta Cannot Delegate Core Adjudicatory Powers Even in Case Against Brother  ||  Ker HC: Complainant Can Invoke Presumptions After Proving Transaction, Cheque Execution Convincingly  ||  Supreme Court Cancels SARFAESI Auction Sale After 16 Years Due to a 5-Day Payment Delay  ||  Jhar HC Orders 2-Month Probe Deadline, DGP Monitoring to Overhaul Sexual Violence Response in State  ||  Delhi HC: Social Media Cannot Undermine Judiciary; Intermediaries Must Act Without Court Orders    

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