NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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