CS COMM--434/2016. Case: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL)..... Vs. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CS COMM--434/2016 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | October 24, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 09th October, 2017
Pronounced on: 24th October, 2017
+ CS(COMM) 434/2016, CC Nos.60-65/2015, CC (O) No.11/2015
IANos.24580-81/2014, 11784/2015, 17428/2015, 25545/2015, 9253/2016
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL)..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. R. Virmani and Mr. Sandeep Sethi,
Senior Advocates with Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapoor, Mr. Adithya Jayaraj, Mr. Prateek Sehrawat, Mr. Devanshu Khanna & Mrs. Karnika Kanwar & Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Advocates.
versus
XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Ms. Julin
George, Ms. Raxchel Mamatha, Ms. Anu Paarcha, Mr. Yatinder Mr.Yashwant Prasad & Ms. Nilofar Abbasar, Advocates for D-1.
Ms. Ria Anand, Advocate for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
IA No. 5893/2016
1. This is an application by the plaintiff seeking constitution
confidential club. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction
CS(COMM) No.434/2016 Page 1 of
against the defendants seeking inter alia a restrain qua violation
infringement of its rights in its patents being as follows :
(i) IN 203034 titled as “Linear predictive Analysis by synthesis
encoding method and encoder”;
(ii) IN 203036 tilted as “apparatus of producing from an original
speech signal a plurality of parameters”;
(iii) IN 234157 tilted as “A method of encoding/decoding multi
codebook fixed bitrate CELP signal block”;
(iv) IN 203686 tilted as “Method and system for alternating
transmission of codec mode information”;
(v) IN 213723 titled as “Method and apparatus for generating
comfort noise in a speech decoder”;
(vi) IN 229632 tilted as “Multi service handling by a Single Mobile
Station”;
(vii) IN 240471 tilted as “A mobile radio for use in a mobile
communication system”;
(viii) IN 241747 tilted as “A transcieving unit for block automatic
retransmission request”;
Along with damages, delivery-up etc. The said suit is pending
adjudication before this Court and is currently at the initial stages of trial.
2. It is argued that this court shall be determining as to whether
plaintiff has offered to defendant No.1 a licence on fair, reasonable
non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and whether the Plaintiff is entitled
to damages or payment of royalties from the Defendants for sales
by it devices infringing the Plaintiffs patented technology and if so,
CS(COMM) No.434/2016 Page 2 of
what period and on what terms. To discharge its onus and in order
fully assist and in determining the issues of FRAND, the Plaintiff would
be producing various patent licensing agreements with similarly placed
parties, including competitors of the Defendants. These agreements
highly confidential in nature and contain, apart from licensing
business sensitive information relating to such similarly placed parties,
hence the plaintiff is seeking constitution of confidentiality club wherein
all confidential licence agreements relating to similarly placed parties
permitted to be filed in sealed cover and be kept in the safe custody
Registrar General and its access shall be to limited personnel from
side.
3. It is argued that such confidentiality clubs have been constituted
even in past in cases involving patents, trade etc. and in the disputes
involving FRAND issues it is legitimate for the courts to constitute
confidentiality club with a view to ensure the sanctity and confidentiality
of business and commercial sensitive information/material, filed by
party is maintained.
4. During the course of arguments, though, the defendants were
averse to the constitution of such confidentiality club but pressed
defendant/clients be allowed to be a party to such club or to have
access to the information. For the learned counsel for the defendant
is no jurisdiction in the world as known to him wherein the parties
kept out of such confidential clubs and since as the lawyers, though
on instructions of their clients, if are not in a position to discuss
contents of the documents would not be in a position to seek instructions
CS(COMM) No.434/2016 Page 3 of
qua the similarly placed organizations with whom the plaintiff
entered into licence agreements.
5. To support this view the learned counsel for the defendants
upon the following judgments:
(a) Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vs. Balwan
Civil Appeal Nos.4360-61/2015 decided on 29.04.2015 wherein
Supreme Court had noted the importance of obtaining instructions
the client and it notes:
32 . Therefore, it is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority conferred him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorized agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client. The advocate represents the client before the Court and conducts proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the Court and the client. Therefore his responsibility is onerous. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment. 33 . ......Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client.”
(b) Patrick McKillen vs. Misland (Cyprus) Investment Limited
(2012) EWHC 1158 (Ch) wherein it was held:-
45. While both these statements refer to the possibility of an "exceptional" or "very exceptional" course that might be taken in a patent or trade secret case, it is, as I have said, unknown that it has ever in fact been adopted. The only cases in which it is known that access is sometimes
CS(COMM) No.434/2016 Page 4 of
denied are those concerning the welfare of children...
To continue reading
Request your trial