Back to Home
Back to Case Archive
PatentPartly Allowed 28 March 2024

Lava International Ltd v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

CS(COMM) 65/2016

Court
Delhi High Court
Bench
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Outcome
Partly Allowed
Date of judgment
28/3/2024

Statutory provisions

Section 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — Not inventions, covers mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs per se, or algorithmsSection 8(1), Patents Act 1970 — Information and undertaking in respect of foreign applicationsSection 10(4), Patents Act 1970 — Contents of complete specificationSection 10(5), Patents Act 1970 — Description in complete specification

Key issue

Whether Lava's mobile devices infringed Ericsson's Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), the validity and patentability of these SEPs under Indian law, and if Ericsson's licensing offers were on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Summary

This case involved a patent infringement dispute between Ericsson and Lava International. Ericsson, claiming to own Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 2G and 3G mobile technology, accused Lava of infringement for manufacturing and selling mobile devices that used these patented technologies without a license. Lava countered by challenging the validity of Ericsson's patents and denying infringement. The court found one of Ericsson's eight asserted patents invalid due to it being a non-patentable algorithm and lacking novelty, but upheld the validity of the remaining seven patents. The court also concluded that Lava acted as an 'unwilling licensee' by failing to negotiate a FRAND license in good faith and that Lava's devices infringed Ericsson's valid SEPs. Consequently, the court awarded damages to Ericsson based on a FRAND royalty rate calculated on the net selling price of Lava's end products. Result: Ericsson's suit was partly allowed; one patent (IN 203034) was revoked, seven patents were held valid and infringed. Damages of Rs. 244,07,63,990/- plus 5% interest and costs were awarded to Ericsson.

Tags

#patent infringement#FRAND licensing#patent validity#Section 3(k)#algorithms#novelty#inventive step#damages#Doctrine of Exhaustion
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab