Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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