INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Anu Paarcha, Aniruddh Bhatia, Mishthi Dubey and N Parvati, Saikrishna & Associates
OPPO v IDG In Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunica- tions Corp Ltd and Others v InterDigital VC Hold- ings Inc and Others (“OPPO v IDG”), the Delhi High Court was seminal in balancing the rights of implementers and innovators alike, particu- larly during the pendency of a proceeding. This involved an appeal from an order of the single judge which mandated pro tem deposits without any finding of validity or essentiality of the suit patents, but which observed non-compliance of an earlier consent order where OPPO had given its consent to provide bank guarantees. The appellants argued that the previous judg- ment had erroneously attributed fault to them, and they were willing to provide an Indian bank guarantee which was adequate protection for the plaintiffs’ rights, making the court-mandat- ed monetary deposit unnecessary. The Divi- sion Bench’s decision ultimately validated this argument, representing a significant shift in how financial security can be provided in SEP dis- putes. The Division Bench’s ruling provided guidance by enumerating two key principles for SEP litiga- tion in India. First, any sort of deposit/security can only be ordered after the plaintiff establish- es a prima facie case of validity and essential- ity of its SEPs. Second, even bank guarantees are acceptable security in these disputes, thus eliminating the need for large monetary deposits. This judgment aims to balance the interests of both innovators and implementers in SEP dis- putes. By permitting bank guarantees instead of cash deposits, the court has reduced the financial impact on implementers while allow- ing some security for patent holders, subject to establishing a prima facie case. The prima facie requirement for establishing SEP validity before requiring any form of security deposit serves as
in Largan v Motorola the Court directed that the parties endeavour to finish the trial within six months. It is thus clear that, in SEP and NEP suits alike, parties have chosen to move for- wards with proceedings towards an ultimate determination rather than focus solely on interim reliefs, despite the recognition of the concept of pro tem relief by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Nokia Technologies OY v Guang- dong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and Others (“Nokia v OPPO”). This is perhaps due to the fact that any sort of interim relief takes time and involves a large number of resources to establish the case. Giv- en this burden, parties are choosing to expend their resources in an attempt to garner final relief, which can be quite lucrative if cases such as Ericsson v Lava and Communications Compo - nents Antenna v Mobi Antenna Technologies are any indication. The propensity to fast track trials in patent mat- ters, instead of focusing on interim relief, has the potential to catapult India as a go-to jurisdiction for patent suits, alongside Germany, the USA and the UK. Given India’s market size, this is of strategic importance to technology companies who have thus far shied away from litigation due to the lengthy judicial process. However, with the advent of the IPDs and fast-track trials, such hurdles have been significantly reduced. If it continues, such a trend is likely to be extremely beneficial to all stake holders, especially SEP holders. India: a FRANDly SEP Jurisdiction In keeping with the trend of previous years, India again saw a large number of SEP cases filed and litigated in 2024, which was marked by several seminal decisions that further shaped the SEP litigation framework.
248 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook