Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved