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    

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ.) v. Best IT World (India) Private Limited (iBall) - (High Court of Delhi) (02 Sep 2015)

Court restricts iBall from importing mobiles, handsets and other devices

MANU/DE/2525/2015

Intellectual Property Rights

Ericsson was successful in its plaint alleging infringement of its patents by several mobile devices imported by and sold as iBall products. Some of the products tested to be infringing of Ericsson's patents were 'iBall Andi Xotic', 'iBall Cobalt Oomph' and the 'iBall Andi Sparkle'. Ericsson had claimed that these and other devices utilised its patented speech codecs in both 3G and 2G modes. The Court rejected iBall's submission that as it was merely a vendor and imported all its telecommunication devices from China, it was unaware of any infringement and if there was an infringement, it was only 'an innocent infringer'.

Relevant : Strix Limited vs. Maharaja Appliances Limited MANU/DE/2174/2009

Tags : MOBILE   PATENT   SPEECH   CODEC  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved