Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Mercury Electronics (Ericsson v. Micromax)

STATUS: Pending before the Delhi High Court


Plaintiff is the registered owner in Indian of eight patents referred to as AMR Patents, 3G Patents and EDGE Patent. He states that all the aforesaid Patents are registered and currently valid. It was alleged by the plaintiff that defendants without payment of any consideration are using the plaintiff’s aforesaid patented technology in handsets imported by them.


Order (March 6, 2013):

Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and balance of convenience is also entirely in its favour. Further, irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff if the interim injunction order as prayed for is not granted.

The Court directed Custom Authorities that as and when any consignment is imported by the defendant No.2, intimation thereof shall be given to the plaintiff and objections, if any, of the plaintiff thereto shall be decided under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 till further orders.

Local Commissioner was also appointed on application by the plaintiff.

Order (March 19, 2013):

Both the parties agreed upon an interim arrangement, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. As per this interim arrangement Ericsson and Micromax agreed to negotiate a FRAND License Agreement for the next one month, based on FRAND terms. Both the parties agreed that the royalties, if any, for the past period will be negotiated as part of the final FRAND agreement that may be arrived at between the parties. As per this arrangement both parties was required to negotiate the final FRAND terms by 09th April, 2013 during which time the interim arrangement would operate.

In the event that parties were unable to arrive at FRAND terms pursuant to negotiations, the Court gave them the option of appearing for mediation.

Order (April 10, 2013): On 10th April, the interim arrangement was ordered to be continued till the next date of hearing

Order (April 22, 2013): Matter adjourned; Interim Arrangement to continue

Order (May 24, 2013): Matter could not be amicably resolved; Date for hearing extended to August 13, 2013. Meanwhile, interim arrangement will continue till the disposal of the injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *