Supreme Court Upholds the Constitutionality of Life Sentences Without Remission Until Natural Death  ||  Supreme Court: Service Benefits Can't be Refused Due to Missing ACRs Not Attributable to Employees  ||  Supreme Court: Courts May Grant Lesser Relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, But Not a Different Claim  ||  Supreme Court Dismisses Lokpal's Plea Against Delhi HC Order Quashing Probe into Defence Secretary  ||  SC Grants Bail to Two UAPA Accused, Citing 12-Year Incarceration and Violation of Article 21  ||  Madras High Court: Seeking Divorce over Wife's Accidental Hip Injury is Inhumane  ||  Kerala High Court Directs Stronger Audit and Financial Oversight in Guruvayur Devaswom  ||  Madras High Court Directs State and Judiciary to Expedite Rape and POCSO Trials  ||  Karnataka HC Upholds RTO's Power to Cancel Registration Secured by False Documents  ||  Karnataka HC: Bengaluru-Mysuru Corridor Could be Biggest Scam, Farmers Deprived of Land    

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