Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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