Patent News - Updates From Q1 2023

STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENTS

To restrain an infringing device, a SEP holder does not have to sue based on each of the thousands of patents that it claims to own in the product; it can do so by showing that one, or a handful of representative patents are infringed.

Invocation of the jurisdiction of CCI by the Defendant, which is premised on the presumption of essentiality, implementation and dominance of Ericsson's patents, shows that the Defendant was very well aware that it was infringing the suit patents.

In the matter of Ericsson v Intex concerning SEPs, cross appeals were filed challenging the judgment of the single bench of the DHC that held Ericsson's eight suit patents to be prima facie valid and essential, and ordered Intex to pay 50% royalty at the interim stage and balance 50% by way of a bank guarantee. Ericsson appealed the impugned decision praying that Intex be directed to pay the entire royalty amount. Intex's contention was that Ericsson's patents