Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Whether the holder of standard essential patents can obtain an interim payment from an implementer before trial, and on what terms.
What the court held
The Division Bench kept the interim deposit in place while altering the form in which it had to be secured. It held that a patentee is not confined to waiting for damages at the end of a trial, and that a court may order an interim payment where an implementer has used the technology without concluding a licence. It treated fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory obligations as running both ways, so an implementer must also negotiate in good faith, and accepted that licensing a whole portfolio can be consistent with those obligations.
Why it matters to a reader of this provision
Standard essential patent disputes now make up a large share of Indian patent litigation, and this is the leading appellate statement on interim relief in them. It matters to readers of the reliefs provision because it treats a payment before trial as legitimate relief. It also sets expectations about how an implementer's behaviour during licence negotiations will be judged by a court.
Provisions this judgment interprets
Open a provision for the plain-language explanation, the worked example and the forms and deadlines it touches.
Does this judgment affect your matter?
Whether a decision helps or hurts depends entirely on your facts and your claims. A patent professional can tell you which.