Hammurabi & Solomon Partners | View firm profile
Co-authored by Mr. Rahul Jain (Partner) & Ms. Rushika Bakshi (Associate)
INTRODUCTION
In the rapidly evolving tech landscape, innovation and standardization are crucial for ensuring seamless interoperability between products and services. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS” or “Agreement”) is a multilateral agreement signed by all the member countries of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). It establishes the minimum threshold for regulation of different forms of intellectual property (IP) by the national governments of member nations.[1] However, due to TRIPS being adopted in 1994 and Standard Essential Patents (“SEP(s)”) being a relatively newer concept, emerging with the growth of Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”), there is no such explicit mention of the same in the Agreement. Nevertheless, SEPs are handled through respective national, competition (or antitrust) laws and further analysed by the courts. The SEP(s) and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms play a vital role in facilitating the interoperability between products and services. SEPs cover technologies that are essential for compliance with industry standards, and companies seeking to implement these standards must use these patented technologies. Standard-Setting Organizations establish and maintain the technical guidelines for the regulation of SEPs and oversees that the companies who are contributing their patented technologies to the standards are licensing them on FRAND terms.
FRAND terms make it mandatory for the SEP holders to license their patented technology in a manner that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. This entails equitable access to technology, avoiding excessive royalty demands, and ensuring uniform licensing terms for all. However, the ambiguity surrounding FRAND obligations has sparked numerous legal disputes, particularly pertaining to patent hold-up and hold-out. These issues underscore the need for a clear legal framework to govern SEP enforcement and licensing, ensuring that patent holders and implementers can navigate these complex issues with certainty.
What is an anti-suit injunction?
An anti-suit injunction is a form of injunction issued by the court of law to either restrain a party from continuing or initiating an action in a foreign jurisdiction.
Anti-suit injunctions and SEP litigation
In disputes associated with standard essential patents, issues mostly arise because of overlapping jurisdictions. And usually, these issues are solved by the issuance of an anti-suit injunction, barring one of the parties from continuing or initiating a proceeding in the same matter in a foreign jurisdiction.
The landmark case between Ericsson and Samsung belongs to the telecommunications field, standardization of which has created a complex global market for standard essential patents. Reason being that patents rights are territorial in nature and most of the contributors hold SEPs across various jurisdictions, and therefore issues related to multi-jurisdictional Frand dispute arise[2]. And one way to get away with this problem is to issue an anti-suit injunction. And as discussed above the party against whom the anti-suit injunction is issued, are barred from continuing or initiating a case in a foreign jurisdiction, related to any kind of injunctive relief, setting a FRAND rate or any kind of antitrust complaints.
Impact of an Anti-suit injunction
The mutual respect among different jurisdictions is important for having international legal cooperation, and anti-suit injunctions may put this to test, by letting one court dictate the proceedings or the jurisdictional authority of the other court. This might lead to international legal conflicts and strained diplomatic relations between the nations. Anti-suit injunctions may also impede the enforcement of patent rights, which holds the potential of affecting the general as well as economic interests of the SEP holders. Therefore, the usage of anti-suit injunctions in SEP litigations creates a complex situation which calls for striking a balance between Patent holders’ rights and ensuring fair competition in the market.
Cross Licensing of Standard Essential Patents
Cross-licensing is a tool that is extensively used in cases involving SEPs, where the common goal is to ensure the building of a certain technology standard while at the same time making sure that patent holders are provided full compensation for their efforts. When SEPs are cross-licensed, the companies participate in a mutually beneficial process that helps in multiple standard implementations and, at the same time, avoids the possible infringement disputes. Through the exchange of patented technologies, cross-licensing can ensure that industries are collaborating which in turn promotes innovation and technological progress, a growth that would benefit the market. Cross licensing of standard essential patents facilitates a two-way exchange of rights to these vital technologies, thereby promoting interoperability, bringing down transaction costs, alleviating risks, and allowing for the creation of new technologies that lead to innovation within the industries, however, rules of competition and FRAND should not be neglected.
Furthermore, the complexities surrounding SEP licensing and FRAND obligations have been highlighted in various legal disputes, such as the Samsung v. Ericsson case, which underscores the challenges in determining fair royalty rates and addressing allegations of patent hold-up and hold-out.
FRAND & Standard-Essential Patents (SEP)
In Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.[3], the US District Court at Eastern District of Texas granted Ericsson Inc. and its co-plaintiff an anti-interference injunction to stop Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and co-defendants from using an Anti-Suit injunction in the ongoing litigation in China which was filed by Samsung to prevent Ericsson from asserting its patent rights in the US and to preserve its jurisdiction to hear the FRAND case that Ericsson had filed in the Texas Court.
The facts of the case were, Samsung (South Korean) and Ericsson (Swedish) are both giant telecommunication companies that are in the business of manufacturing cellular devices and products and have an extensive global portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to the 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G cellular standards. In the past, both these companies have entered into cross licensing agreements with respect to their SEPs and have negotiated a licensing rate and royalty fee amicably. The latest cross licensing agreement was entered into by the two companies in 2014 and the same was supposed to expire by the end of 2020. However, when the two companies started off their re-negotiations for cross licensing in 2020, they could not successfully agree on a licensing fee and royalty rate even after multiple attempts. As a result, the renewal of cross licensing agreement was not fruitful and what occurred in the aftermath of these futile negotiations is a very complicated procedural history wherein suits were filed by both these telecommunication giants in two different jurisdictions, thereby causing a disruption in the industry.
On 7th of December 2020, Samsung filed a case in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province on, for the Chinese court to decide on the global licensing terms and rate for Ericsson’s 4G and 5G SEPs. Samsung did not notify Ericsson of this filing.
Unaware of the legal action initiated by Samsung, in pursuance to this, Ericsson filed a civil suit in the United States, Easter District court of Texas, on 11th of December 2020, to assert its patent rights and to address the alleged breach of FRAND obligations by Samsung as per the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
After getting notified about the action initiated against them in the United States, Samsung on 14th of December 2020, filed a Behaviour Preservation Application again in China’s Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei province, requesting the court of law to issue an anti-suit injunction against Ericsson so as to prevent them from seeking relief in any other jurisdiction. Samsung also filed an ‘Application for Delaying the Serving of Behaviour Preservation Application to Ericsson’ which required the Chinese Court to not inform Ericsson about the Behaviour Preservation Application so that they would not file a suit in another country (like the one in US), thus preventing interference with the ruling of the Chinese Court.
On 17th of December 2020, Samsung informed Ericsson about the Chinese action but did not provide any documents to Ericsson as Chinese suits are solely based on paper without any online documentation but finally on 22nd of December 2020, Samsung provided a copy of the complaint to Ericsson and nothing more.
On 25th of December 2020, the Chinese court in Wuhan, (i) issued an anti-suit injunction against Ericsson, which barred Ericsson from initiating any suit against Samsung seeking injunctive relief in any of their SEPs related to 4G and 5G technology; (ii) hold service of certain materials pending the ASI ruling since other courts would likely seek to prevent the ASI’s enforcement in their respective jurisdictions; and (iii) the ASI granted for the duration of the action and until a future judgment in the action is effective, from seeking relief regarding the SEPs anywhere in the world, with violations punishable by substantial fines.
The Wuhan court therefore barred Ericsson from seeking an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction against Samsung so that it cannot prevent Samsung from using the Wuhan court to neutralize every legal remedy that Ericsson would try to seek from any other court, which also included the Eastern District Court of Texas.
However, the anti-suit injunction issued by the Chinese court against Ericsson, did not stop the Swedish company from filing for an ex parte temporary restraining order against Samsung in the District Court of Texas on 28th of December 2020, in order to prevent Samsung from interfering with Ericsson’s attempt in asserting its patents rights in the U.S.
Upon this filing, the District Court of Texas on 11th of January 2021, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which later turned into a preliminary injunction in the form of an Anti-Anti-Suit injunction, but unlike the Chinese court’s order, the Texas court ruled that the civil cases filed by both the parties in different countries, i.e. the case filed by Ericsson in the U.S. and the case filed in China by Samsung, to proceed parallelly. The District Court therefore prohibited Samsung from taking any action in the Wuhan Court that would hinder the action in the US Court or any such action that would interfere with Ericsson’s right to assert their patents under the US law and Samsung was further ordered to indemnify Ericsson from any sort of penalties and fines imposed upon them by the Wuhan Court as a part of their anti-suit injunction ruling[4].
Subsequently, Samsung appealed to the Federal Circuit Court against the anti anti suit injunction sought by Ericsson from Texas Court wherein supporting briefs were submitted by amicus of both the parties. For instance, according to the supporters of Samsung, “the anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan court was a legitimate exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.”
Amidst the ongoing litigation, both the companies announced in May 2021 that they had mutually entered into a cross-licensing agreement relating to their 4G and 5G SEPs effective from 1st of January 2021, ending all the lawsuits pending in several jurisdictions. The companies hence finally went for an amicable out of court settlement thereby renewing the multi-year cross license agreement.
As per Judge Gilstrap, the issues raised in Wuhan Court and the issues raised in the Texas Court are entirely different from one another even though the factual matrix was more or else similar[5].
The Intermediate Court of Wuhan had to determine the global licensing terms and ascertain the FRAND royalty rates applicable for all the cellular products of Samsung that implemented Ericsson’s 4G and 5G SEPs. On the contrary, US District Court of Texas was requested by Ericsson to look into the breach of contractual terms and FRAND obligations on Samsung’s part. While the Wuhan Court had to decide on a numeric value, the Texas Court had to evaluate whether the conduct of the parties was lawful or not.
But the main issue for consideration in this multi-jurisdictional case would be to analyse as to what considerations should be kept in mind by one national court so that their rulings do not impact the jurisdiction and sovereignty of courts and agencies of other countries.
Judge Gilstrap’s Anti-Anti-Suit injunction was a very well thought out and reasoned decision which also acts as an example of a ruling that respects the course of action and nature of legal proceedings in the Chinese jurisdiction. The first instance can be seen when he laid down the distinct nature of issues that both courts had to deal with and that each court acts very well within its jurisdiction while deciding upon those particular issues. The action in the Chinese Court was unilateral in nature as it was meant to act as a relief for Samsung by fixing a royalty rate on SEPs held by Ericsson while on the other hand the contentions raised by Ericsson in the US pertain to negotiating a cross-license as per FRAND terms wherein the potential licensee, i.e. Samsung in this case also grants a reciprocating license on its own SEPs.
Judge Gilstrap also noted that the ruling of the Wuhan Court prevented the efficient and speedy action of the US Courts whereas the actions of the US Court had no possible implications on the efficient functioning of the Chinese Court, and it did not intend to frustrate or delay the case brought in Wuhan[6]. He was of the opinion that each Court should be allowed to adjudicate upon the issues brought before it pursuant to its legitimate jurisdiction without any interference and states that his order of anti-interference injunction in no manner poses to be a threat to the international concord but promotes the litigation to proceed parallely in both countries.
Further, it would have been unfair and unjust if Ericsson was not permitted to assert its patent rights in the US and bring its claims under the laws of US just because of the anti-suit injunction ruling of the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan which had already placed Ericsson in a relatively much weaker negotiating position as compared to Samsung. Additionally, while studying the procedural history, it was understood that Samsung had appealed against the decision of the Texas District Court praying for injunctive relief and therefore, it would have been completely inadequate if Ericsson was not allowed to assert the rights over its SEPs due to the anti-suit injunction ruling in Wuhan. It would have been the height of hypocrisy if Samsung is freely proceeding in China as well as US, but Ericsson is completely deprived of any opportunity to claim its patents.
Finally, while granting relief to Ericsson, Judge Gilstrap was very rational and did not grant the full relief as requested. He respected the procedures of the Chinese jurisdiction and therefore never ordered Samsung to provide Ericsson the documents filed by it in China as he was aware that this would interfere with the court procedures in China. He did not even bar Samsung from continuing the proceedings in China and allowed them to carry out in correspondence. The relief provided to Ericsson was by way of getting indemnified of all the penalties and fines imposed on them through the Chinese Court and thereby ensured that no one party is economically drained. Hence, through this order, the Texas Court signalled its intent to minimize Chinese interference in its procedures while allowing Chinese proceedings to continue without obstruction. Cross-Border Complexities in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Litigation
The increasing reliance on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in global technology industries has led to complex legal disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions. These disputes often involve conflicts over patent enforcement, royalty determination, and FRAND licensing obligations. The case of Samsung v. Ericsson exemplifies the jurisdictional challenges arising in SEP litigation, particularly the use of anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions, which courts issue to prevent or counteract parallel litigation in different countries.
These legal manoeuvres highlight the broader challenge of balancing patent rights, competition law, and international legal co-operation in the enforcement of SEPs.
The Growing Importance of SEP Litigation and the Need for a Jurisdiction-Specific Approach
The Samsung v. Ericsson case underscores the need for a jurisdiction-specific approach to SEP enforcement. Courts across different countries have taken varied positions—some prioritizing patent holders’ rights to fair compensation for their innovations, while others focus on preventing market abuse by dominant firms. This divergence raises a key legal and policy question: Should SEP enforcement follow a harmonized international framework, or should each country tailor its approach based on its economic and technological priorities?
India’s telecom market, with over 1.2 billion subscribers, is the second-largest globally, underscoring the growing significance of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in the country.[7] These figures demonstrate how crucial Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and associated issues are becoming for the Indian subcontinent. As a rapidly growing tech hub, India has witnessed an increase in SEP-related litigation, with courts navigating complex issues like patent recognition, royalty determination, and licensing obligations. SEPs jurisprudence in India is not as developed as in other jurisdictions such as the US. In view of the numbers above, Indian courts aim to strike a balance between incentivizing innovation and ensuring technology accessibility, preventing excessive royalty demands and monopolistic practices while ensuring fair returns for SEP holders. Major telecom players like Ericsson, Intex, Micromax, Lava, and Interdigital have been involved in SEP disputes, highlighting the need for a well-defined SEP framework in India.
INDIA’S STAND ON SEPS AND FRAND LICENSING
India’s judicial approach to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) reflects a blend of global legal precedents and jurisdiction-specific considerations tailored to the domestic market. Commonly litigated areas concerning SEPs in India include injunctions, defining an unwilling licensee, calculating interim royalty rates and FRAND rate determination.[8] A large part of SEPs litigation involves SEP infringement and determining when it warrants the grant of an injunction. Implementers who utilise SEPs without authorisation run the risk of falling into one of four situations: i) The SEP holder may sue them, ii) they may pay royalties as demanded by the SEP holder, iii) they may eventually develop a non-infringing device that is not as effective than the SEP technology at complying to the standard or iv) they may avoid the relevant market.[9] A series of significant pronouncements demonstrate the development of India’s SEP jurisprudence.
SEP Litigation in India
The Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.[10] case marks a significant milestone in Indian patent law, particularly in the realm of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and intellectual property enforcement. This judgment resolves three interconnected suits filed by the Plaintiff Philips relating to the infringement of Indian Patent No. 218255, which pertains to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”.
The court validated Philips’ patent through technical evidence and claim mapping, aligning its approach with global standards on SEP enforcement. This ruling provided critical insights into the indispensability of the Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation Plus (EFM+) encoding method for DVD replication and compliance with the DVD standard. The court found that Philips had maintained a global FRAND licensing program, offering licenses at a standard royalty rate of USD 0.03 per DVD.
The court held that the defendants’ replication process utilized discs with the EFM+ modulated signal, proving infringement. The defendants’ attempt to evade liability through third-party outsourcing was rejected, with the court concluding that they knowingly facilitated the production of infringing DVDs. The defendants were held liable for indirect infringement under Section 48 of the Indian Patents Act.
To determine the quantum of damages, the court cited the seminal judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom[11] which maintained that FRAND rates are the best suitable foundation for determining damages in SEP infringement cases, to establish the amount of damages[12] [13]. The Indian Jurisprudence has acknowledged and reinforced this principle. The court emphasised that the rates were fair and in line with global norms, upholding Philips’ FRAND royalty structure of USD 0.03 per DVD.
Further, the evidence indicated that Philips repeatedly and diligently attempted to provide the Defendants a license under FRAND conditions. Nevertheless, the Defendants, did not get a license or stop their replication activities despite being informed of the necessity of the Suit Patent and their duty to do so. The court noted that this reflects a classic example of willful infringement. Moreover, the defendants omitted to present records that would have disclosed the entire extent of their infringement actions and concealed DVD production sales statistics throughout the proceedings. The court imposed aggravated damages of ₹1 crore, deeming the defendants’ actions a textbook example of willful infringement. This amount, equivalent to approximately $120,482, is recoverable jointly and severally from the defendants across the three suits.
Furthermore, the court observed that by failing to secure a FRAND license, the plaintiff was forced into prolonged litigation, depriving them of timely compensation. Consequently, the court awarded 12% per annum interest on the total damages, spanning from suit filing to actual payment.
Finally, the court awarded the full litigation costs in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
India’s First Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order
The concept of anti-suit injunction and anti-enforcement injunction is gaining prominence worldwide including in India. Recently, the Delhi High Court in Interdigital Technology Corporation vs. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.[14] granted an anti-enforcement injunction. It was held that a foreign court cannot restrain a party from pursuing its cause before Indian Court when Indian jurisdiction is the only forum.
The facts of the case as follows, the dispute arose when InterDigital, a U.S.-based SEP holder in 3G and 4G technologies, sued Xiaomi for patent infringement in India. However, Xiaomi had already obtained an anti-suit injunction (ASI) from the Wuhan Intermediate Court, China, restraining InterDigital from pursuing legal action in India.
The Delhi High Court delivered its final judgment on 3rd May 2021, upholding and declaring India’s first anti-enforcement injunction granted against Chinese multinational Xiaomi Corporation and in favour of US technology giant and pioneer interdigital. The High Court observed that the Wuhan Court did not take into account the fact that the cause of action arose in India because the proceedings involved alleged infringement of six specific Indian patents.
Although India does not have any specific rules pertaining to the grant of anti-suit injunction, still the jurisprudence has been developed on the basis of considerable precedence. The Court held that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and that the parallel suit filed is oppressive, frivolous and keeps the Plaintiff from availing the remedies available to them.[15]
Furthermore, the court pointed on the distinction between an Anti-Suit injunction; an Anti-Anti-Suit injunction, and an Anti-Enforcement injunction. It was also observed that because Wuhan Anti-Suit proceedings had already been concluded, the subsequent Indian injunction granted was in the nature of an Anti-Enforcement injunction. The High Court explained that although there is no reason for an anti-enforcement injunction to be seen as rarer than an anti-suit injunction, Courts must still proceed with caution while granting any such request owing to the delicate nature of the proceedings. The Court thus upheld the principle that Comity is a two-way street.
Additionally court also pointed out that the copy of the anti-suit injunction application filed by the defendants in the Wuhan Court was never provided to the plaintiff and therefore the mere issuance of the notice to the plaintiff will not imply transparency of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Wuhan Court had no justification for preventing Interdigital from pursuing its claims for an injunction against Xiaomi in India unless there was a significant overlap between the proceedings in Wuhan and India that rendered the Indian proceedings oppressive and frivolous.
Finally, the Court concluded that Xiaomi shall compensate plaintiffs by depositing a corresponding amount with the court in India, if the Wuhan Court upholds its anti-suit injunction order, and orders the plaintiff to deposit penalties for prosecuting its Indian suit.
Comparative Analysis: FRAND Royalty Battles in India v. The U.S.
In the realm of SEP licensing, India and the US diverge significantly in their approaches to determining FRAND royalty rates. In India, the jurisprudence surrounding SEPs is still in a formative stage. Recent cases like Ericsson v. Lava (2024) and Intex v. Ericsson (2023) show a growing reliance on judicial discretion and comparable licenses rather than a structured economic framework. In Ericsson v. Lava, the Delhi HC awarded damages approximately Rs. 2.44 billion (US $ 30 million) based on the end-product price[16] and adjusted royalty rates considering invalidated patents, reinforcing portfolio licensing as a legitimate practice. In Intex v. Ericsson, the court addressed the procedural threshold for interim relief in SEP disputes and clarified that the Nokia v. Oppo four-fold test, which required: (i) proof of prima facie infringement, (ii) demonstration of the patentee’s evidence of the implementer’s unwillingness or delay, and (iv) a showing that the terms offered were indeed FRAND, wasn’t mandatory for interim relief and instead prioritised prima facie infringement and the implementer’s willingness to negotiate. Contrastingly, the U.S. employs a more structured approach to FRAND royalty determinations, heavily relying on economic analyses and established legal frameworks, as established in Microsoft v. Motorola, where the court used a modified Georgia-Pacific framework to calculate FRAND rates based on the intrinsic value of the patent (excluding it from standardization)[17] and emphasised avoiding royalty stacking[18]. U.S. courts typically prefer using the smallest saleable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) for royalty calculation, unlike Indian courts that use full device price.
CONCLUSION
The enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) principles remains a pressing concern globally, with landmark cases like Samsung v. Ericsson and Koninklijke Philips N.V. vs. Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl shaping the legal landscape. These cases underscore the delicate balance between protecting SEP holders’ rights and ensuring fair competition and technological advancement.
The Samsung v. Ericsson dispute highlights the complexities of multi-jurisdictional litigation, particularly regarding anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions. Judge Gilstrap’s measured approach in Texas allowed parallel proceedings to continue without interference, exemplifying the challenges of determining global licensing terms. In contrast, the Koninklijke Philips case showcases India’s evolving stance on SEPs, with the Delhi High Court’s recognition of Philips’ patent as an SEP demonstrating the country’s commitment to FRAND-based licensing. This ruling, coupled with InterDigital v. Xiaomi, positions India as a key player in global SEP disputes, asserting its judicial sovereignty in intellectual property enforcement.
A recent landmark judgment in the Ericsson v. Lava case further solidifies India’s position in global SEP disputes. The Delhi High Court’s comprehensive analysis of FRAND principles, essentiality, and infringement sets a crucial precedent for future SEP cases. Key takeaways from this judgment include the court’s emphasis on global licensing practices, the importance of claim mapping, and the rejection of the doctrine of exhaustion as a defense in SEP infringement cases. The Ericsson v. Lava judgment marks a significant milestone in India’s evolving SEP jurisprudence. This decision underscores India’s growing assertiveness in shaping global SEP disputes, aligning with international best practices while safeguarding judicial sovereignty. The court’s adoption of the comparable license approach for determining FRAND rates and damages highlights the need for a balanced and predictable framework for SEP licensing.
As India continues to refine its legal framework on SEPs, judicial clarity on licensing disputes will play a vital role in promoting a favourable environment for SEP holders and implementers alike. The convergence of international best practices and India’s growing assertiveness in SEP disputes will likely shape the country’s position as a key player in global SEP disputes.
References:
[1] TRIPS Art. 1(3).
2 Haris Tsilikas, ‘Anti-Suit Injunctions for Standard-Essential Patents: The Emerging Gap in International Patent Enforcement’ (2021) 16 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 729.
3 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2021)
4 Greg Ward and Milne, ‘A Secret Injunction – Ericsson Granted “Anti-Interference” Injunction Against Samsung in Global SEP Dispute’ (HLK, 19 January 2021) <https://www.hlk-ip.com/a-secret-injunction-ericsson-granted-anti-interference-injunction-against-samsung-in-global-sep-dispute/> accessed 25 April 2024.
5 David Long, ‘Judge Gilstrap Preliminarily Enjoins Samsung From Using Parallel Chinese Case To Interfere With U.S. Case (Ericsson v. Samsung)’ (Essential Patent Blog, 12 January 2021) <https://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2021/01/judge-gilstrap-preliminary-enjoins-samsung-from-using-chinese-case-to-interfere-with-u-s-case-ericsson-v-samsung/> accessed 26 April 2024.
6 ibid.
7 https://www.aippi.org/news/frand-litigation-and-sep-dispute-indian-perspective/#_ftn1
8 Ameya Pant & Dipesh Jain, Complexities surrounding SEP cases in India: An overview of decisions by the High Court and Competition Commission of India,13 JIPLP 132, 132-142 (2018).
9 Yogesh Pai, The Rational Basis for FRANDly Courts Denying Injunctive Relief for SEPs Infringement, 19 JIPR 146, 146-156 (2014).
10 High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 423/2016 & I.As. 18701/2014, 20810/2014, 3550/2021
11 Unwired Planet International Ltd. and Anr. v. Huawei Technologies (UK) Co. Ltd. and Anr. UKSC/2018/0214.
12 Xiaomi Technology and Anr. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) and Anr. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7688
13 Lava International Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2497
14 A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020.
15 Modi Entertainment Network &AnrVs W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 1177.
18 https://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/10/23/recent-indian-case-law-on-standard-essential-patents-2/