Tag Archives: patent claim infringement
Philips moves Delhi High Court against Xiaomi and Vivo over patent infringement
Philips has moved the Delhi High Court over patent infringement against two Tech giants, Xiaomi and Vivo. Philips in its suits claims that the two mobile manufactures have violated its "Standard Essential Patents". The patents relate to “UMTS enhancement (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies” in the telecommunication technologies.
In one of its suits against Xiaomi, the Plaintiff have sought the following:
- Restraint against manufacturing/assembling, importing, selling and advertising of certain smartphones that infringe the Plaintiff’s patents.
- Injunction has been sought to direct the Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue appropriate instructions to custom authorities to restrict the import of mobile handsets that infringe the Plaintiff’s patents.
- Quantum of mobile phones and any other devices sold till date that are UMTS, HSPA, HSPA+ or LTE compliant.
- Revenue earned from the sale of such devices for every quarter.
- Safeguarding the Plaintiff's rights and interest and secure recovery of amounts for past infringing activities of the Defendant.
A single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao directed the defendant to maintain an amount of Rs 1000 crores in their bank account operated in India and submit details of the bank accounts operated in India.
The advocate representing the defendants accepted the notice for the defendants and has taken on record that, till the next date of hearing the Defendants shall maintain an amount of Rs 1000 crores in their bank account operated in India. The defendants have also agreed to file the details of the bank accounts operated in India where the said amount is being maintained before December 02, 2020.
Summons are issued to the defendants, and the same are received by the advocate for the defendants. The summons states that a written statement be filed within 30 days from the date of summons.
The hearing of suit against Xiaomi will be on March 01, 2021.
In its suit against Vivo, the Plaintiff has pleas that a direction be issued to not create any encumbrance or third-party rights in its manufacturing plant.
While dealing with the suit against Vivo, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher directed the defendant to not create any encumbrance in its manufacturing plant during the adjudication of the case.
The hearing of suit against Vivo will be on February 10, 2021.
High court order against Vivo: https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-12/7c132206-219b-43ae-a047-82e43136ff40/Philips_v__Vivo___383___Order_dt__17_11_2020.pdf
High court order against Xiaomi:
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=220558&yr=2020
We hope this article was a useful read.
Please feel free check our services page to find out if we can cater to your requirements. You can also contact us to explore the option of working together.
Best regards – Team InvnTree
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported License
Infringement of patent claims – Indian Context
Claims of a patent define the scope of protection conferred by the patent. Hence, patent claims are worded carefully with an objective to make it harder for those attempting to work around the claims. While patent holders dread a situation where competitors make minor changes to a patent protected product/process to evade patent infringement, competitors on the other hand dread a situation where changes made to a patented product/process are not sufficient to evade patent infringement. Insight into how patent infringement is determined can go a long way in addressing concerns of patent holders and those attempting to work around existing patents.
Patent infringement analysis is usually conducted in two stages, namely, literal infringement analysis and non literal infringement analysis (infringement under the doctrine of equivalents). In the first stage of analysis, a claim and the alleged infringing product or process are analyzed to determine whether all the elements of the claim are present in the alleged product/process when the scope of the claim is construed by the literal language of the claim. If the alleged product/process includes all the elements of the claim when the scope of the claim is construed by the literal language of the claim, the claim is said to be literally infringed by the alleged product/process.
Patent infringement analysis proceeds to the second stage if literal infringement is not established. In the second stage, the scope of protection conferred by the claim is extended beyond the literal language of the claim. Several countries including US, UK and India apply various principles which extend the scope of protection conferred by a patent claim beyond the literal language of the claim while analyzing non literal infringement. Courts in the US have dealt extensively with situations relating to non literal infringement. The courts in India on the other hand have had relatively fewer occasions to deal with situations relating to non literal infringement.
On occasions the Indian courts have had to deal with situations relating to non literal infringement, the courts have favored purposive construction of claims, thereby extending the scope of claims beyond the literal language of the claims. The Delhi High Court in Raj Parkash Vs. Mangat Ram Chowdhry held:
“It is the pith and marrow of the invention claimed that has to be looked into and not get bogged down or involved in the detailed specifications and claims made by the parties who claim to be patentee or alleged violators.”
Purposive construction of claims was also suggested by the Madras High Court in TVS Motor Company Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited. The court in the instant case held:
“In construing an allegation of infringement, what is to be seen is whether the alleged infringement has taken the substance of the invention ignoring the fact as to omission of certain parts or addition of certain parts.”
The above cited judgments suggest that the “pith and marrow” or the “substance” of the invention has to be looked into in defining the scope of a claimed invention. The Madras High Court also refers to House of Lords decision in Catnic Components Limited Vs. Hill and Smith Limited, which favors purposive construction of claims.
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the Indian courts do not limit the scope of protection conferred by a claim to the literal language of the claim. The instant position of the courts is in favor of patent holders who can be optimistic about enforcing their patent rights against those attempting to work around their patents by making modifications, which may be within the “substance” of the claim. Nonetheless, claims should be carefully crafted to capture the “substance” or “crux” of the invention, and should avoid including non-essential elements in the claim. On the other hand, those attempting to work around a patent claim should not rely on minor modification to a claimed product/process, which may be inferred to be not going beyond the “substance” of the target claim.
I hope you find this article helpful. You may also download our article for your reference.
Feel free to check our patent services page to find out if we cater to your needs.
Also, feel free to contact us or ask us a question and have it answered within 24 hours. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License