The Delhi High Court has directed Chinese smartphone maker Shenzhen Transsion Holdings (which includes Itel, Infinix and Tecno) to deposit a ‘pro tem’ (temporary) security deposit with the Registrar General in the patent infringement cases filed by InterDigital Patent Holdings. As per Live Law report, the case pertains to the alleged unauthorized use of ‘Standard Essential Patents’ (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, 5G and HEVC video coding technologies.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela gave this order on July 1 while deciding on the applications of InterDigital, which had sought interim ‘pro tem’ security deposit till the court’s decision on the petition seeking interim stay.
patent infringement allegation
Inter Digital has filed two separate lawsuits against Shenzhen and its affiliated companies, alleging infringement of five patents. Four of these patents are related to cellular communication technology used in 3G, 4G and 5G standards, while the fifth patent is related to HEVC video coding technology. The company alleges that Shenzhen has been using its SEPs (standard-essential patents) without a license since at least April 2016, while licensing talks began in 2019.
According to InterDigital, Shenzhen was provided with more than 100 claim charts during negotiations and held at least 12 meetings with the company, including four all-day technical discussions in China. It also proposed to resolve the licensing dispute through arbitration, but claimed that Shenzhen rejected the proposal and continued to use the patented technology without obtaining a license.
High Court rejected the argument
Shenzen opposed the demand for a security deposit, arguing that InterDigital had failed to establish even a prima facie case as to the validity and essentiality of the subject patent. The company further said that the court cannot determine the appropriate amount of security without examining similar third-party licensing agreements. The High Court rejected this argument. The court referred to previous decisions of the Division Bench, which had held that the absence of comparable licensing agreements at this stage does not prevent the court from granting interim relief.
The Court also reviewed decisions of other jurisdictions regarding related patents. The Court found that where Chinese authorities had invalidated a patent equivalent to a patent containing certain claims. At the same time, the courts of countries like United Kingdom and Brazil had upheld the validity or essentiality of the concerned patent. Considering these decisions together, the Court held that there was no reason to conclude at this initial stage that the patents claimed by InterDigital were invalid or non-essential.
Read this also- Camera of iPhone Air 2 will be upgraded, will get 2 cameras of 48 megapixels
Leave a Reply