As I noted earlier this year, commentators on the Essential Patent Blog, FOSS Patents and IPKat had called attention to a March 2023 decision of the Delhi High Court, Intex v. Ericsson, holding, inter alia, that SEP owners may obtain interim injunctions on the basis of a prima facie case, and reversing a lower court decision imposing more stringent criteria. Within the past few weeks, a few additional commentaries have appeared, including the following:
1. Enrico Bonadio and Mahak Kansara published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog titled Recent Indian Case Law on Standard Essential Patents. The post discusses the Delhi High Court’s decision, and argues that notwithstanding Intex the four-step test for obtaining a preliminary injunction in a FRAND case, previously set forth by the High Court in Nokia v. Oppo (and ostensibly rejected in Intex) “should still have some relevance, especially in proceedings where patent owners ask for an injunction to put pressure on implementers.”
2. Brian Scarpelli and Priya Nair published Forging a Fair Path for Standard-EssentialPatents in India, Law360, Oct. 18, 2023. These authors too are disappointed with the Intex decision, and reference their longer paper “A Call to Action: Guiding a Fair Standard-Essential Patent Licensing Process for a Thriving Indian Economy,” which is available on ssrn.
3. Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon and Dr. Ashwini
Siwal published a post on SpicyIp titled SEPs & FRAND: Misnomers & Maladies, which
summarizes their paper SEP
Litigations & Issues in Determining FRAND License, 28 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 438 (2023), previously
noted here. The post is not limited to Indian law, but poses the question "where Indian SEP jurisprudence is headed."
No comments:
Post a Comment