India: India SEP Litigation Update – Warning To Implementors

Last Updated: 20 September 2018
Article by Essenese Obhan

The Delhi High Court in July 2018 ruled in favour of the international electronics giant, Philips, in a case involving its patents relating to DVD video players (See decision passed by the Delhi High Court on 12 July 2018 in Koninklijke Philips NV vs Rajesh Bansal (CS(COMM) 24/2016), and Koninklijke Philips NV vs Bhagirathi Electronics (CS(COMM) 436/2017)). It is rare, though not uncommon, to have cases involving both patent and competition law come up in Indian courts. This was one of those chances, and it was set up to offer interesting and relevant jurisprudence on cutting edge patent and anti-trust issues such as essentiality, standard setting, and exhaustion. The outcome of the case, though, was less than satisfactory, for various reasons, some of which are discussed here.

Brief Facts

The suit was for patent infringement of Indian Patent Number IN 184753, owned by Philips, for channel modulation as used in DVD players. The defendants were selling assembled DVD players, which contained chipsets allegedly infringing the Philips patent. The suit was filed in 2009, and the patent expired in 2015. The court found infringement of the patent, but no injunction followed, as the patent had expired. Philips claimed that the patent was essential to the relevant standard set by the DVD Forum, and relied, indirectly, on corresponding US and European patents to make this claim.

Some fundamental issues emerged in the course of the proceedings in the case, which remain unresolved, or unsatisfactorily determined. An issue that has been repeatedly coming up in patent proceedings across India, of late, for example, is that of the overlap between the jurisdictions of the patent/IP authorities and competition authorities. The court, in this case, held that the legality of patent pools as such was not something that the court could get into. But the law remains fairly ambiguous in this regard, as to what is to be kept for judicial adjudication and what is to be retained for regulatory determination. There continues to be an overlap between IP and competition regulatory authorities and laws in India. Until that overlap is sorted out, these issues remain in crossover territory, and it may not be as black-and-white as the court believes it to be.

The court tried to address the issue of essentiality, but the method it used to arrive at its conclusions was very problematic. The question was whether the claims in the Indian patent were comparable with the relevant standard. Ideally, the court should have compared the claims itself. Instead, it relied on a mere opinion of US and European attorneys representing the plaintiff. The opinion stated that the US and EP patents to be standard essential. Based on this opinion of external law firms, the court decided that the Indian patent was also essential. In doing so, it appears to set a dangerous precedent in accepting external law firms opinions as the basis of finding essentiality. The order does not so much as record the relevant sections of the standard that are apparently reading on the patent. Of most concern is that the claims in India are in fact not the same as the claims in US or Europe. There is an an additional limitation drafted into the Indian claim, which clearly identifies the novel and inventive contribution over the prior art. This changes the character of the Indian patent significantly from the US and EP patents. This should have been more carefully examined by the court, to determine whether the claims in India were essential.

Concerns also exist around the strategy used by the plaintiff. This was a one patent suit, but related to a multi patent license. Essentially, this is a practice of filing a suit for one patent but alleging infringement of entire portfolio. If the entire portfolio was alleged to have been infringed, then all the patents in that portfolio ought to have been made a part of the suit. This was not done, and was not questioned by the court either. As a precedent in patent practice, this is open to abuse to multi-patent holders, and most likely than not, those on the side of the implementers will be affected.

There was also a change in the counsel for the defendants halfway through the case. This led to some interruptions in the case, as well as a change in the strategy followed by the defence. For example, there was a reconsideration on the question of validity of the patent. Originally not in issue, the new defence counsel tried arguing that the patent was an algorithm (and thus barred from patentability as being excluded subject matter under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970). But the court did not consider it as it was not initially pleaded by the defendants. Due to this, the case has limited precedent value for cases relating to standard essential patents, as in practically all such cases, the defence has argued that the patent in question is not valid subject matter to begin with.

The court eventually concluded that infringement was established, regardless of the essentiality issue. For this, it compared product outputs against each other, instead of comparing the claim with the infringing product. The defendants also tried to argue for the application of the principle of exhaustion. They claimed to have bought the DVD chipset from an authorized licensee of Philips (i.e., Mediatek). The court, however, held that the defence had to prove whether or not the chipsets were purchased from an authorized licensee, effectively rejecting exhaustion.

On the questions around Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing terms, the court concluded that the defendants must prove that the rate offered was not FRAND. Eventually, the court relied on the negotiations between the parties to determine FRAND rates; these negotiations had treated the DVD player as a product as a whole, and not the smallest saleable unit. More than anything, this should be a red flag for manufacturers who rely on licenses for the entire device. This decision suggests that such negotiations can be used against the licensees for determining FRAND terms.

The court also, uncommonly, not only granted punitive damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the defence, but also directed the defendants to pay up the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff in the litigation, amounting in sum to a fairly tidy amount.

Many of these issues are likely to reopened for redetermination by higher courts. So there is still no finality on these. But certainly, for both patent and competition practice, interesting times lie ahead.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Obhan & Associates
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Obhan & Associates
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions