- Work & Careers
- Life & Arts
Indian court to investigate Xiaomi in Ericsson case
Limited time offer, save 50% on standard digital, explore more offers..
Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.
Premium Digital
Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.
- Global news & analysis
- Expert opinion
- FT App on Android & iOS
- FT Edit app
- FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
- 20+ curated newsletters
- Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
- FT Videos & Podcasts
- 20 monthly gift articles to share
- Lex: FT's flagship investment column
- 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
- FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
FT Digital Edition
10% off your first year. The new FT Digital Edition: today’s FT, cover to cover on any device. This subscription does not include access to ft.com or the FT App.
Terms & Conditions apply
Explore our full range of subscriptions.
Why the ft.
See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.
De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law
DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part
“The ground of concealment as urged by the applicants needs to be accepted to the extent of the two patents relating to CDMA applications. Accordingly, the interim order dated December 8, 2014 in so far as it relates to two patents IN229632, IN240471 (3G patents) is vacated.”
Disclaimer: I represent several clients in matters related to SEPs / FRAND and against Ericsson.
I found it useful to highlight the editor’s note because of its prophetic nature. Patent matters are complex, and injunctions should not be the norm. In the normal course of collecting compensation for patents that are not encumbered by a FRAND promise, patent owners must prove infringement on a claim by claim basis for each patent, and in the course of such an assertion withstand challenges such as validity and enforceability. Once this threshold is met, i.e. the patent is proved to be valid and infringed, only then is the inquiry conducted for damages. This is once again done on a patent-by-patent basis. However, in some interim matters, patent have been presumed to be valid, and infringed, and essentiality is presumed because the patentee claims that other entities have taken a license to the SEPs.
SEP owners should not be given any special status and placed along with normal patent owners. Traditional legal rules and burdens of proof should apply to them equally . Just because the patent owner participated in the standard setting process and self-declared hundreds of patents to be essential does not mean that (i) burden of proof requirements are waived for them, or (ii) they can stake a special claim to royalties on an end product when their patents (alleged SEPs) may at most be implicated in a miniscule component of the end product, both according to price and size parameters. In short, SEP owners are not entitled to a higher legal pedestal.
Before the DB, Xiaomi had argued that Ericsson was not entitled to an injunction, because Xiaomi already had a license from Qualcomm which in turn had a license with Ericsson, i.e. Xiaomi was paying Qualcomm some royalty (lets call it X), and Qualcomm by virtue of its licensing arrangement with Ericsson, was paying Ericsson a royalty (not the same as X). Ericsson had concealed this information before the single judge, and hence the injunction issued. The DB ordered that this was a matter of trial, and allowed Xiaomi to sell subject to certain conditions, etc.
After trial, the single judge came to the conclusion that Ericsson had indeed concealed information pertaining to two patents and appropriately vacated the order of December 8, 2014.
In my view, because an injunction is an equitable relief, the entire order of December 8, 2014 should have been vacated, as Ericsson concealed information that was relevant. In all probability, the judge would not have granted the injunction, if made aware of this issue.
There is also the aspect of double dipping – If Xiaomi paid Qualcomm, Qualcomm paid Ericsson – Ericsson cannot claim again from Xiaomi. This is a very serious issue – it reflects the possible misuse of NDAs to obfuscate information, and in particular a money claim. Also because Qualcomm is a chipset provider, it punches a big hole into several theories.
Options available to Xiaomi : In my view, they should immediately appeal the judgment – the impact of concealment can’t be limited to two patents. Will the Court now bifurcate and return payments received for the 3G patents? Importantly, how will the court return the Defendant to the same position it was before the injunction issues – even assuming it was for 2 patents only? To add to the confusion, Xiaomi’s claim regarding AMR patents being used for 3G is also plausible. Hence the tally becomes 7 (5 AMR + 2 3G patents), i.e 7/8 patents are out of reckoning.
Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the very important issue of not issuing an injunction in patent matters, and making patent owners prove infringement on a claim by claim basis for each patent, and in the course of such an assertion withstand challenges such as validity and enforceability.
Note: CDMA in the judgement is a typo – it should be WCDMA or more technically UMTS, both of which are 3G.
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
About The Author
Rajiv Kr. Choudhry
Leave a comment cancel reply, you may also like:, secrets and standards: analaysing pro-tem securities in interdigital v. oppo [part ii], secrets and standards: balancing the confidentiality of seps in interdigital v. oppo [part i], some thoughts on the “fairness” of the delhi high court’s ericsson-lava frand determination- part ii, looking for the reasons in the delhi high court’s frand determination in the ericsson- lava sep case- part i, delhi high court imposes damages worth inr 244 crores on lava in the ericsson-lava sep dispute, analysis of february 2024 delhi high court judgment in interdigital v. oppo – ii, analysis of february 2024 delhi high court judgment in interdigital v. oppo – i, spicyip tibdit: delhi high court directs oppo to make interim deposit in interdigital v. oppo proceedings, (spicyip tidbit) nokia- oppo sep litigation: the dust (dispute) finally settles.
Quite an interesting case. I believe the patentee has not been provided the proper legal counsel. I would appeal this…
This is wrong! Anirudh would not copy songs.He doesn't have to copyright any songs because Anirudh is smart enough to…
Casablanca rectification order -appeal filed!!
Good stuff Julia and Snehal. In fact other jurisdictions seem to be acting on this issue already. Recently, California Senate…
I emailed but there is no reply
Copyright © 2024 SpicyIP
Discover more from SpicyIP
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Type your email…
Continue reading
- Latest News
- Personal Finance
- Tech and Science
- Women in Business
- Real Estate
Xiaomi reprieve in Ericsson patent case: Redmi 1S can be sold, but not Redmi Note
In a reprieve to Xiaomi, the Delhi High Court in India has granted partial relief to the Chinese smartphone maker in the Ericsson patent infringement case, which saw its popular Redmi Note and 1S devices banned from sale in the country .
According to an official tweet by Press Trust of India , the Delhi High Court has granted Xiaomi the temporary right to import and sell Qualcomm-based smartphones in India, until 8 January.
Delhi HC permits Xiaomi to sell and import Qualcomm chipset based handsets till January 8. — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) December 16, 2014
This means that the popular Qualcomm-based Redmi 1S can be sold through the first week of January, but Xiaomi's other popular offering, the Redmi Note, still faces a sales ban as it is built on a MediaTek processor.
The latest Delhi High Court ruling should bring joy to Xiaomi's loyalists who expressed solidarity towards the company during the court's earlier injunction order that completely prevented Xiaomi from selling handsets that allegedly violate Ericsson's technology patents in India.
Xiaomi vs Ericsson
The Delhi High Court, on 8 December, passed an injunction order against Xiaomi, for the company's alleged infringement of patents by Sweden-based Ericsson.
As per the injunction order, Xiaomi will have to stop selling smartphones in India temporarily. The China-bred company was also required to refrain from either advertising or importing handsets whose designs infringe upon patent designs registered by Ericsson.
Even Xiaomi's e-commerce partner Flipkart was included under the purview of the court's directive.
Currently, Both the high-end Redmi Note , priced at a comparatively affordable £103 (INR 9,999, $162), and the mid-range Redmi 1S , priced at £60 (INR 5,999, $100), are now closed for purchase registration on Flipkart.
However, Mi fans can expect yet another round of flash-sales, for the Redmi 1S, to take place on Flipkart, but there has been no official confirmation regarding the resumption of Mi handsets sales, by either Xiaomi or Flipkart.
In complying with the court's directive, Xiaomi's Vice-President Hugo Barra apologised to Mi fans, for stopping sales, but had promised to be back soon.
© Copyright IBTimes 2024. All rights reserved.
Trump Safe After Apparent Assassination Attempt, Person In Custody
'I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT' Trump Posts On Social Media
UK Foreign Minister Lammy Plays Down Putin Threats
Eight Migrants Die In Channel Crossing Attempt
IMAGES
COMMENTS
On October 15, 2019, Xiaomi shook hands with Ericsson, and the five-year patent litigation came to an end. Back in 2010, he was dismissed from his position as a lecturer at the university. This ...
The license therefore does not cover the 8 patents in Ericsson's Indian patent litigation against Xiaomi for GSM or EDGE applications. Furthermore, Qualcomm does not have the right to provide any rights under any Ericsson patents to Xiaomi's products using non-Qualcomm chipsets (such as Mediatek chipset)." 26.
In the case of Ericsson ... Subsequently, Xiaomi on appeal against the aforesaid Order of the single judge and received some respite when the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 16 th December 2014 conditionally allowed Xiaomi to sell their devices until February, 2015. The Order among several other conditions stipulates that Xiamoi can ...
An Indian court has launched an inquiry into allegations Xiaomi disobeyed an order restricting its phone sales as part of a patent case with implications for the Chinese smartphone maker's ...
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v. Xiaomi Technology. Yogesh Khanna, J. IA No. 5893/2016. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff seeking constitution of confidential club. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants seeking inter alia a restrain qua violation and infringement of its rights in its patents ...
"As you may be aware of Ericsson has taken legal action in India against a company called Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd ("Xiaomi"). The suit involves products of Xiaomi incorporating both chipsets of Qualcomm as well as chipsets of third parties (Mediatek). 8 patents have been asserted against Xiaomi relating to e.g. EDGE, AMR for GSM, AMR ...
On December 9, 2014 we had informed our readers that the Delhi High Court (DHC) had granted an interim injunction against Xiaomi. The injunction was later modified by an order of the Division Bench of the DHC, and Xiaomi allowed to sell its devices subject to certain conditions. The first post started with an editor's note, which I find it useful to reproduce (just replace probably with ...
that both Ericsson and Xiaomi, in this case, failed to dis-close relevant information, thus calling into play the concept of contributory negligence. The court could have granted an injunction anyway in respect to the other six patents held by Ericsson, despite disclosure of an agree-ment with Qualcomm, due to Xiaomi's failure to get, di-
Ericsson has mounted similar litigation against other phone makers, including Micromax, Gionee, and Intex, according to SpicyIP, which originally broke the news. But the court seems to have ...
Ericsson v Xiaomi, 2016 Facts. In December 2014, Ericsson (Plaintiff) had filed a suit against Xiaomi (Defendant) in India for the alleged infringement of the 8 standard-essential patents (SEPs). A patent that protects technology essential to a standard is called SEP.
in IA No. 12541/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New. Delhi) XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No.112807/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS ) Date : 13-11-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.112803/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN FILING and IA No.112807/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL. DOCUMENTS/FACTS ) Date : 24-08-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
Hence, it decided to lodge a suit in Delhi's High Court. The Delhi High Court has apparently been swayed enough by Ericsson's case that it has told Xiaomi to stop hawking its ultra-hot smartphones ...
Xiaomi's Qualcomm-based smartphone, the Redmi 1S can be sold in India, until 8 January. Xiaomi. In a reprieve to Xiaomi, the Delhi High Court in India has granted partial relief to the Chinese ...
The High Court affirmed an interim (or preliminary) injunction by a lower court (referred to in the decision as the challenged or "impugned order") entered over eight years ago in March 2015 that required Intex to pay 50% of the expected royalty while the case was pending because Ericsson had shown it was likely to prevail in the case: e.g ...
case, dealer/manufacturer might have other non-infringing options. It was, thus, essential that bargaining power of a dealer/manufacturer implementing standard be protected and preserved. In present case, apart from instituting suits for infringement against Micromax and Intex, Ericsson
The first order came after Ericsson Telefonaktibolaget — which owns some 33,000 standard-essential patents for mobile communication — moved court, saying Xiaomi had violated its patent by not paying to get a licence to use its technology. But the Chinese company, which is now the third-largest in the world in volume, was quick to react, and switched to selling devices with Qualcomm ...
Ericsson vs. Xiaomi case. In this law suit, Ericsson filed a suit against Xiaomi in India in December 2014 to protect its patent right on the 8 standard-essential patents. An ex-parte injunction on the sale, manufacture, advertisement and import of Xiaomi's devices was imposed by the Hon. Delhi High court.
The license therefore does not cover the 8 patents in Ericsson's Indian patent litigation against Xiaomi for GSM or EDGE applications. Furthermore, Qualcomm does not have the right to provide any rights under any Ericsson patents to Xiaomi's products using non-Qualcomm chipsets (such as Mediatek chipset)." 26.
Ericsson and Xiaomi strike global licence. Jacob Schindler. 22 October 2019. The parties settle after nearly five years of litigation in the Delhi High Court, but are keeping the deal and its terms quiet.
The Delhi High Court was satisfied that Ericsson had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction in its favour, and directed Xiaomi to stop sale of all its handsets/devices in India. Xiaomi in its appeal against the injunction alleged that Ericsson, while obtaining the ex parte injunction order, did not inform the court that ...
Xiaomi Corporation is a Chinese gadget manufacturer established by Lei Jun in 2010 and headquartered in Beijing. Xiaomi makes and puts resources into cell phones, versatile applications, trimmers, headphones, television, and numerous other products. Ranked 468th, Xiaomi was the most youthful organization on Fortune Global 500 List of 2019.