TMPatentAllowed 20 February 2025
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj.(Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Bench
- Sanjeev Narula, J.
- Outcome
- Allowed
- Date of judgment
- 20/2/2025
Statutory provisions
Section 16, Patents Act 1970 — Divisional applicationsSection 21(1), Patents Act 1970 — Abandonment of patent applicationsSection 48, Patents Act 1970 — Rights of patenteesSection 64(1)(e), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where invention is not new or publicly usedSection 64(1)(h), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where specification does not sufficiently describe inventionSection 64(1)(i), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where claims are not fairly based on specificationSection 64(1)(j), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where patent obtained by false suggestion/representationSection 64(1)(k), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where invention is not patentableSection 64(1)(m), Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation where information required by Section 8 is not disclosed or is falseSection 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — Exclusions from patentability (computer programs per se)Section 3(m), Patents Act 1970 — Exclusions from patentability (mental acts)Section 106, Indian Evidence Act 1872 — Burden of proving fact especially within knowledgeSection 108(1), Patents Act 1970 — Reliefs in suits for infringementSection 113, Patents Act 1970 — Certificate of validity of claims
Key issue
Whether the defendants infringed Indian Patent No. 218255 by replicating DVDs using EFM+ modulation technology without a license, and whether the patent itself is valid and patentable.
Summary
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed three lawsuits against various defendants for infringing its Indian Patent No. 218255, which details a method for converting information words into a modulated signal used in DVD manufacturing. The defendants, who replicate DVDs, denied infringement and challenged the patent's validity on several grounds, including insufficient disclosure and lack of novelty. The court found that the patent is valid and essential for DVD technology, and that the defendants had indeed infringed it. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff based on standard royalty rates and the defendants' willful infringement and failure to disclose sales data.
Result: Suit for patent infringement decreed; defendants held liable for infringement and ordered to pay damages with interest and full litigation costs.
Tags
#Patent#Infringement#Standard Essential Patent (SEP)#Patent validity#Section 8 compliance#Royalty rates#Wilful infringement#Indirect infringement#Divisional application
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab