Nokia Technologies Oy v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd (2023)

Summary

“The present infringement suits concern a total of seven patents in the field of telecommunications.” “Out of these seven patents, out of which four are claimed to be Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the other three patents asserted are implementation patents.” (para 2) “Oral arguments were concluded by the parties on the interim injunction applications on 6th May, 2023 and judgment was reserved.” (para 3) The Division Bench, in “Nokia Technologies OY v. Guangdong Oppo, 2023:DHC:4465-DB”, “directed deposits in the pro-tem application filed by the Plaintiff.” (para 4) “Vide order dated 6th September, 2023” the Court “queried ld. Counsels for parties, to seek instructions if they would agree to proceed to an expedited trial in all the suits” and “the judgement in the interim injunction applications was de-reserved.” (para 9)

“However, only on one issue there was a dispute i.e., whether the trial would be for fixing a global FRAND rate or a FRAND rate only for India. On this issue no consensus could be arrived at between the parties.” (para 11) “From the above, it is clear that the Defendants are not willing for a global FRAND rate to be determined by this Court in these proceedings for various reasons.” (para 13) “Accordingly, the judgment in all the injunction applications i.e., I.A.7699/2021, I.A.7706/2021, I.A.4158/2022, and 1.A.4267/2022 are reserved.” (para 14) “In view of the various decisions of Courts in Europe placed on record by the Defendant, let the Plaintiff place on record an updated Form-3 in respect of all the seven patents asserted in the present suits within a period of two weeks.” (para 17)

What the court decided

1. Procedure. A global or an Indian rate. “However, only on one issue there was a dispute i.e., whether the trial would be for fixing a global FRAND rate or a FRAND rate only for India. On this issue no consensus could be arrived at between the parties.” (para 11) Recording the defendants’ statement that each “is willing to accept and abide by the Indian FRAND rate determined by the Indian Court i.e. for Nokia’s India Portfolio and for Defendant’s India Sales, subject to the Defendant’s right to appeal” (para 12), the Court held: “From the above, it is clear that the Defendants are not willing for a global FRAND rate to be determined by this Court in these proceedings for various reasons. Thus, the stand of the Plaintiff is that the judgement may be pronounced in the interim injunction applications.” (paras 11–13)
2. Procedure. Judgment reserved. “Accordingly, the judgment in all the injunction applications i.e., I.A.7699/2021, I.A.7706/2021, I.A.4158/2022, and 1.A.4267/2022 are reserved.” (para 14)
3. Procedure. Foreign decisions on record. “judgment dated 20th July, 2023 passed by the Judicial Court of Paris is taken on record and accordingly, the applications seeking to take the same on record are allowed and disposed of.” (para 15) Of “the decision numbered T- 0522/21 dated 5th July, 2023 of the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office revoking the European Patent bearing publication number EP2087626B1”, the Court held: “The said decision being relevant to the present proceedings would be considered by this Court in adjudicating the interim injunction applications.” (paras 15–16)
4. Procedure. An updated Form 3. “In view of the various decisions of Courts in Europe placed on record by the Defendant, let the Plaintiff place on record an updated Form-3 in respect of all the seven patents asserted in the present suits within a period of two weeks.” (para 17)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 16 October 2026.