INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Anu Paarcha, Aniruddh Bhatia, Mishthi Dubey and N Parvati, Saikrishna & Associates
Damages and Expedited Trials: Final Relief at Last! Historically, IP suits in India, and particularly pat- ent suits (including SEPs), have followed a set pattern. Once the patentee secures an interim injunction in their favour, they often try to ensure that this injunction is continued indefinitely. This usually leads to the parties reaching a settlement even before commencement of trial. In 2024, a divergence from the set pattern was seen, with two key judgments being delivered and award- ing damages in the millions of dollars. In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v Lava International Ltd, 2024:DHC:2698 (“Ericsson v Lava”), the Delhi High Court handed down the second post-trial decision in an SEP suit (and the first in a cellular SEP suit), awarding INR244 crores (USD29.9 million approx) along with legal costs. This was an extremely important step for- wards in Indian SEP jurisprudence, as it demon- strated that an Indian court was also willing to determine a FRAND rate (albeit in the context of declaratory relief) and would award damages even in an SEP suit. Interestingly, the damages herein were calculated on the basis of the lost FRAND royalty. Similarly, in Communication Components Antenna Inc v Mobi Antenna Technologies, 2024:DHC:3975, the Court, while adjudicat- ing on a patent infringement, awarded INR217 crores (USD26.04 million approximately) in lost profits damages. The quantum of damages was computed by considering the potential reason- able profit a patentee would have earned if the infringing product had been sold by the paten- tee, and is an indication of how the Delhi High Court is likely to compute damages in the future. With patent jurisprudence evolving, Indian courts no longer grant interim relief merely when
requested, and typically allow for the other par- ties to file a reply (ie, a counter to the assertions of the plaintiff). A large amount of time is thus spent on arguing applications for interim relief. As a result, parties have started moving direct- ly to expedited trials with either no security or security as mutually agreed upon by the parties. However, in certain cases the Indian courts have considered safeguarding the plaintiff by ordering deposits/security at an interim stage, particularly in cases where the defendant is located outside India and has no assets in India which would secure the plaintiff if it were successful. In Koninklijke Philips NV v Vivo Mobile Com- munication Co Ltd and Others, CS (Comm) 383/2020 (“Philips v Vivo”), the parties agreed to move directly to trial, as the defendants agreed to furnish security (in this case, land) in lieu of disposal of applications for interim relief. How- ever, due to a number of procedural applications for disclosure, etc, the trial commenced in 2025, in an expedited fashion. Similarly, in 2021, in Interdigital Technology Corp and Others v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecom- munications Corp Ltd and Others, CS (Comm) 692/2021 (“IDG v OPPO”), the parties consent- ed to dispose of the plaintiff’s applications for interim relief in lieu of a bank guarantee and to move directly to an expedited trial. Again, after adjudication on various applications, the expe- dited trial commenced in 2024 but the matter was settled shortly thereafter. In Largan Precision Co Ltd v Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd and Others, CS (Comm) 795/2022 (“Largan v Motorola”), Largan gave up its appli- cation for interim relief to move directly to an expedited trial, which is presently underway. Similar to IDG v OPPO where the Court directed the parties to try and conclude the trial in a year,
247 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook