Malikie Innovations Ltd & Anr. vs Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026
+ CS(COMM) 734/2025 & I.A. 17509/2025
MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
versus
XIAOMI CORPORATION & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali
Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms.
Gitanjali Sharma, Ms. Prachi Sharma,
Mr. Gursimran Singh Narula and Mr.
Jitesh Prakash Gupta, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Ms. Julien
George, Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Dr.
Victor Vaibhav Tandon, Mr. Ayush
Saxena and Mr. Christo Sabu,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 17510/2025
1. This Application is filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking deposit of pro tem security
amount on the basis of the offer made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants for
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 1 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

the unlicensed manufacture, import and sale of 4G and 5G compliant
devices, in particular, mobile phones / handsets.
2. The Plaintiffs are seeking to license a portfolio of cellular Standard
Essential Patents (“ SEPs ”) comprising the patent assets that Plaintiff No. 1,
Malikie Innovations Ltd. acquired from BlackBerry Limited (“ BlackBerry ”)
and patent assets that are currently owned by BlackBerry, but licensable by
Plaintiff No. 1.
3. The following patents are referred to in the Suit: (i) IN 283303 titled
as “ A METHOD FOR PROVIDING REPETITIONS ACK/NACK FROM A
USER EQUIPMENT ”; (ii) IN 317530 titled as “ A USER EQUIPMENT FOR
DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION ”; and (iii) IN 335982 titled as “ SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ESTABLISHMENT CAUSES ” (“
Suit
Patents ”). The Suit Patents were published under Section 11A of the Patents
Act, 1970 (“ Act ”). No pre-grant or post-grant oppositions have been filed
against the Suit Patents.
4. After hearing the Parties, the order / judgement was reserved on the
present Application on 24.12.2025. At the request of the Parties, the present
Application was listed on 24.04.2026 for the limited purpose of bringing to
the attention of this Court the subsequent development regarding filing of a
suit by the Defendants for rate-setting for the Suit Patents as per the FRAND
principles before the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, China
(“ Shenzhen Court ”) bearing Case No. Yue 03 Min Chu 2724 titled as
‘ Shenzhen Xiaomi Information Technology Co. Ltd. v. Malikie Innovations
Ltd. ’ (“ ”).
Chinese Civil Suit
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 2 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
submissions:
5.1. In May 2023, Plaintiff No. 1 acquired approximately 32,000
patents and patent applications from BlackBerry. The Plaintiffs
first approached the Defendants in October 2023 offering to
engage with it in discussions for a Fair and Reasonable and Non-
Discriminatory (“ FRAND ”), but the Defendants refused to engage
in good faith negotiations and showed no intention of actually
executing a license agreement on objective FRAND terms.
5.2. In January 2024, Plaintiff No. 1 and BlackBerry entered into a
Patent License Agreement (“ ”) in which Plaintiff No. 1
PLA
obtained the exclusive right to sub-license the remaining cellular
SEPs retained by BlackBerry, to specific named companies
including Defendant No. 1, Xiaomi Corporation , Defendant No. 2,
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited , Defendant No. 3,
Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd. and Defendant No. 4, Beijing
Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Limited in relation to products
compliant with cellular standards. Pursuant to the terms of the
PLA, BlackBerry transferred additional cellular SEPs, including
the Suit Patents to Plaintiff No. 1 in March 2025.
5.3. Under its cellular SEP licensing program, the Plaintiffs offer
implementers a worldwide license to Suit Patents covering 3G, 4G,
and 5G technologies on terms and conditions that are FRAND.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 3 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

5.4. The Defendants’ behaviour in the present Suit shows a pattern of
delays and procedural objections, suggesting major hold-out tactics
and a lack of genuine willingness to negotiate a FRAND license.
The Plaintiffs have displayed willingness and have discharged
FRAND obligations to European Telecommunications Standard
Institute (“ ETSI ”) with respect to the Defendants’ use of 4G and
5G SEPs.
5.5. The Defendants’ behaviour includes excessive revisions and
deliberations around the form of Non-Disclosure Agreement
(“ NDA ”). Sensing the delay that the Defendants could cause only
on resolving issues concerning NDAs, the Plaintiffs had to
commence discussions and provide the Defendants with
information even before the execution of the NDA.
5.6. The egregious conduct of the Defendants in the present Suit only
points to their unwillingness to take a license. The fact that the
Defendants have engaged in FRAND discussions with the
Plaintiffs and have not disputed their obligation to execute a
license for the Suit Patents against the payment of an appropriate
FRAND royalties. The implementer’s legal obligation to furnish
security arises at the negotiation stage itself. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. ZTE Corp.
and Anr. , [2015] Bus LR 1261 while making the above
submission.
5.7. An implementer is obligated to furnish security which is
commensurate to the FRAND offer made by the SEP holder.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 4 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

Reliance was placed upon the decisions in VoiceAge EVS LLC v.
HMD Global Oy , Case No. 7 O 15350/19 and VoiceAge EVS LLC
v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. &
Ors. , Case No. 7 O 10630/21 wherein the Court held that an
implementer is only a willing licensee, if it provides an adequate
security to the SEP owners.
5.8. The Defendants continue to sell its devices implementing the 4G
and 5G standards and thereby infringing the Suit Patents. In fact,
the Defendants’ operations in India and the world over have seen
unparalleled success over the years. The Defendants hold 17.76%
of the mobile vendor market share in India and 12% worldwide,
according to statistics as of June 2025. The Defendants itself has
reported that its sales in India and Europe have grown by 26% in
2024. The Defendants are ranked third globally in sell-through
market share and recorded the fastest growth among the top five
smartphone brands in 2024. In June 2021, The Defendants’
smartphones sales constituted 17.1% of the global market share,
and thus earned it the position of the world’s largest smartphone
maker. The Defendants have consistently ranked amongst the top
five largest vendors of smartphones in India and in the world for
several years.
5.9. In Nokia Technologies OY v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile
Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. , Neutral Citation:
2023:DHC:4465-DB, the Court held that furnishing pro tem
security is the implementer’s obligation in the negotiation phase
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 5 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

itself. The pro tem security is more relevant in the Indian context,
in view of tedious judicial proceedings, compared to foreign
courts. The Court in unequivocal terms held that the implementer
cannot be allowed to derive benefit from using the SEP holder’s
technology in the interregnum without making any payments for
such use.
5.10. The Defendants have admitted on their websites that their devices
are compliant with the 4G and 5G standards, including but not
limited to the representative list of devices referenced in the Suit.
Further, the claim charts showing essentiality of the Plaintiffs’ Suit
Patents to the 4G and 5G standards, show conclusively that the
Defendants’ devices use the technology covered in the Plaintiffs’
Suit Patents.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
6. The learned Counsel for the Defendants made the following
submissions:
6.1. BlackBerry has not been made a party to the present case. The
failure to comply with this mandatory statutory requirement of
joining the patentee renders the suit liable for dismissal on the
grounds of non-joinder of a necessary party. It is trite that when an
act is statutorily prescribed to be done in a particular manner, it
must be done in that manner alone and there can be no exemption
thereof. In fact, the Plaintiffs have given absolutely no justification
as to why it has not impleaded Blackberry in the present
proceedings, not that there can be any justification given for
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 6 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

overcoming the clear prescription articulated under Section 109 of
the Act.
6.2. The Plaintiffs have not provided any valuation for the Suit Patents
that they assert as their current property. In SEP / FRAND
disputes, the valuation of the Suit Patents is an important
consideration, particularly when requesting pro tem deposits.
Without such valuation or supporting objective evidence, a
technical assessment of the Suit Patents would serve no purpose,
as the absence of a FRAND basis precludes the granting of interim
reliefs, whether pro tem or otherwise.
6.3. The Plaintiffs have not entered into any third-party license
agreements, as no such agreements have been placed on record.
Consequently, in the absence of third-party licenses, any
negotiations undertaken by the Plaintiffs during the pre-suit period
or the current lis appear to rely on speculative assessments
regarding the value of the Suit Patents, which cannot be accepted
without substantiation. This claim is further unsupported by
comparable licensing arrangements, a standard recognized by this
Court for assessing whether the rates proposed by a patentee meet
FRAND obligations.
6.4. The Plaintiffs have deliberately omitted making BlackBerry a
party to the present lis and have filed an action before the District
Court, Texas, United States of America (“ US Court ”) instead,
seeking discovery of the third-party license agreements entered
into by Blackberry or Teletry.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 7 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

6.5. The grounds advanced by the Plaintiffs in support of their request
for pro tem relief are insufficient, as they require the Court to
make assumptions that are not permitted under the law,
specifically:
a. The Suit Patents are valid and essential and infringed, despite
there being no finding or admission to this effect;
b. The rates [i.e., the offer(s)] sought by the Plaintiffs as a pro
tem deposit are FRAND, even though the Plaintiffs
admittedly do not have any third-party license agreements for
the portfolio in question and even though there has been no
such finding in favour of the Plaintiffs by any Court till date;
c. The Defendants are unwilling licensees, merely by seeking
justified clarifications for the computational basis of the
royalty rates sought by the Plaintiffs, in the absence of any
objective material on record to substantiate the claim of
FRAND compliance by the Plaintiffs.
d. The apprehension that the Defendants would divert money
and not be able to secure the Plaintiffs, even though in
actuality every SEP litigation instituted against the
Defendants in the past have been amicably resolved, without
any finding of guilt.
6.6. It is settled law that the inherent powers of the Court under Section
151 of the CPC are procedural powers and not substantive ones.
Therefore, it is a procedural provision which enables a party to
have the proceedings of a pending suit to be conducted in a manner
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 8 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

that is consistent with justice and equity. It is trite that the powers
under Section 151 of the CPC are not meant to be implemented for
determining the substantive rights of any litigant. In fact, the
orders which affect the rights of a litigant party can only be passed
under specific powers conferred on the Courts.
6.7. In the present Application the Plaintiffs are essentially seeking to
avoid establishing a prima facie case in its favour while seeking
some ad interim relief / pro tem security which in itself
demonstrates their malafide . The Division Bench of this Court, in
the context of SEP disputes, has clarified that pro tem orders are
nothing but another name for ad interim / interim orders and fall
within the ambit of Order XXXIX of the CPC and are nothing but
a determination of substantive rights of the Plaintiffs. Reliance was
placed upon the decision in Guangdong OPPO Mobile
Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & Ors. v. Interdigital Technology
Corp & Ors. , Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4547-DB while making
the above submission.
6.8. The Plaintiffs have misplaced reliance upon the decision in Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra ) for seeking pro tem security. The said
decision has clearly enunciated that the Court must enter a prima
facie finding on essentiality and validity and infringement of the
suit patents before passing direction for payment of pro tem
deposit.
6.9. It is settled law that the chronology to be followed in a SEP suit is
that the Court must assess: (i) if the suit patents are valid and
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 9 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

essential and infringed; (ii) if the royalty rates offered by the
Plaintiff(s) are FRAND; and (iii) if the Defendant/s is willing to
take a license on the rates determined to be FRAND by the Court.
The rationale for this sequence is that if the patents are not, in fact,
valid or essential, the suit fails then and there, and the assessment
of FRAND is not required. This is particularly important in India,
where the validity of a patent cannot be presumed as per law. As
per Section 13(4) of the Act, there is no presumption of validity of
a patent. However, if the Court were to grant pro tem relief without
the Plaintiffs even establishing the validity prima facie , it would,
in effect, be presuming the validity of the patent and thereby
rendering Section 13(4) of the Act futile.
6.10. It is a legal obligation voluntarily undertaken by an alleged SEP
owner to provide licenses for its claimed SEPs on FRAND terms.
Therefore, the alleged SEP holder must necessarily provide their
comparable license agreements to enable a FRAND assessment by
the Court. Such disclosure is mandated by Rule 4A(viii) of the
Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 (“ Rules ”).
6.11. The Plaintiffs for the Suit Patents have filed an Assignment dated
16.04.2025 with the Indian Patent Office, which evidences that the
value of the Suit Patents is merely $100. On the basis of the
documents on record and the fact that Plaintiffs have failed to
provide any valuation, the Suit Patents can be only be valued at the
rate at which they were assigned to Plaintiff No. 1, i.e., $100.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 10 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

6.12. The Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the decision in Huawei Technologies
Co. Ltd. ( supra ) is an attempt to mislead the Court into believing
that the Court is required to direct pro tem deposits prior to prima
facie finding in favor of the Plaintiffs. Such a proposition is
patently false as Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. ( supra ) is not a
decision on pro tem deposits, in fact, no pro tem was ordered in the
said case itself.
6.13. The Plaintiffs’ reliance upon the decision in Intex Technologies
(India) Ltd. & Ors. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) ,
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:4465-DB is misplaced. The decision
of the Court was issued in an appeal against the order passed in an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and
was, therefore, not on the question of whether a Court ought to
pass pro tem order without prima facie finding. The Court
specifically held that in order to grant any interim relief, the Court
must arrive at prima facie finding of infringement, willing licensor,
and unwilling licensee.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
7. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
submissions:
7.1. The Plaintiffs first approached the Defendants on . Two
years have elapsed and the Defendants have still not signed a
license agreement on FRAND terms. There have been two offers
by the Plaintiffs dated and and two
counteroffers by the Defendants dated and .
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 11 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

7.2. Pro tem security is a necessary initial interim arrangement in SEP
disputes till the time the interim injunction application is decided.
It precedes an interim injunction and requires a lesser threshold
than an interim injunction. Reliance was placed upon the decision
in Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited ,
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5426, wherein the Court held that in
order to balance the equities between the parties, it was
empowered to pass a pro tem order as a temporary arrangement
without a detailed examination of the merits of the case.
7.3. The Defendants do not deny using the Suit Patents. The
Defendants declare its products as complying with the standard,
with respect to which Plaintiffs’ patents have been disclosed to
ETSI as being essential or potentially essential. The Defendants
have not described what alternative technology is used by the
Defendants’ devices, to buttress its stand that the Defendants do
not use the Suit Patents.
7.4. The Defendants have engaged in negotiations for a global license
agreement for several years. The Defendants have made
counteroffers, and thus, have recognised its need to execute a
license agreement for the Suit Patents. The Defendants’ challenge
to the validity and essentiality of the Suit Patents, as made in the
Suit proceedings, were not made in the course of negotiations or
technical discussions, and hence, appear to be afterthoughts only to
create an illusion of doubt on the strength of the Suit Patents.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 12 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

7.5. The Suit Patents have been declared essential or potentially
essential to the 3G, 4G and 5G standard in accordance with ETSI’s
Intellectual Property Rights Policy. The Defendants’ websites and
product packaging declare that the Defendants’ devices as being
conformant with 4G and 5G standards. It is established law that in
view of such self-declaration of conformance with technology, an
SEP holder does not need to file any further proof of infringement
of its SEPs.
7.6. The portfolio of the Suit Patents is one of the strongest in the
world This portfolio was initially owned by BlackBerry, which is a
pioneer of cellular technology. Patents formerly owned by
BlackBerry are fundamental to the foundation of wireless cellular
communication. In Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors. v.
Apple Retail U.K. Limited & Ors. , Neutral Citation: [2022]
EWCA Civ 1411 also cites evidence that BlackBerry’s share of the
overall patent stack was more than 1%.
7.7. The Defendants have been engaged in manufacturing, marketing,
and sale in India of cellular devices that are compliant with 3G
standards since 2011, with the 4G standards at least since 2014 and
with the 5G standards at least since 2020. The Defendants have
remained unlicensed to the Suit Patents since the inception of their
operations.
7.8. As stated in the Confidential Affidavit of Ms. Angela Quinlan
(“ Affidavit ”), the Plaintiffs had extensive technical discussions
with the Defendants to discuss the validity, essentiality of
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 13 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

representative samples of the portfolio of the Suit Patents.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 14 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

However, the correspondence demonstrates that this was not the
choice made by the Defendants, which further reinforces the fact
that the Defendants’ challenge to validity, essentiality, and
infringement of the Suit Patents in the present Suit, is an
afterthought.
7.12. The Defendants admit their need to license the Suit Patents in
exchange of FRAND royalty payments. Throughout negotiations
with the Plaintiffs since October 2023, it has never been the case
of the Defendants that it does not use the Suit Patents, or that it
does not need to sign a license agreement with the Plaintiffs for the
Suit Patents.
The Defendants’
unreasonably low counteroffer of proves the
Defendants’ intention to delay negotiations indefinitely to continue
making unlicensed use of the SEPs in question for as long as
possible, and to pressurize the Plaintiffs into accepting terms
favourable to the Defendants.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 15 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

7.13. It is well settled that an implementer is required to furnish security
which is commensurate with the FRAND offer of the SEP holder,
and not the counteroffer of the defendants. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in Koninklijke Philips N.V v. OPlus Mobitech
India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , order dated 20.12.2023 in CS(COMM)
574/2019 while making the above submission.
7.14. The Plaintiffs provided the Defendants with the following
information throughout the period of negotiations:
a.
b.
c.
d.
7.15. The Plaintiffs in the offer letters dated and
offered to engage in binding international arbitration as a means to
resolve the dispute, the Defendants have refrained from accepting
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 16 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

any form of alternate dispute resolution at the present stage. The
Plaintiffs made a specific request on , for disclosure of
requisite sales data, which is the duty of every willing licensee but
the same was not provided by the Defendants. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. &
Anr. , UPC_CFI_210/2023 while making the above submission.
7.16. Defendant No. 2 is under investigation for money laundering and
custom duties revision. The pendency of investigations, coupled
with the Enforcement Directorate’s seizure order amounting to
₹5,551.27 crores under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999 demonstrates the fragile financial standing under which
Defendant No. 2 presently operates.
7.17. Precarious financial position is a ground for grant of pro tem
security under Section 151 of the CPC. Pro tem security is
necessary against the defendants with no physical assets in India, a
shrinking market presence, or weak financial standing. Reliance
was placed upon the following decisions while making the above
submission:
a. Nokia Technologies OY ( supra );
b. Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ); and
c. Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Ace
Technologies Corpn. , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7700
7.18. The pro tem security payment is not akin to an interim injunction.
It does not require detailed exploration of merits. The threshold for
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 17 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

prima facie case is much lower than what is required for an interim
injunction. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions
while making the above submission:
a. Nokia Technologies OY ( supra );
b. Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( supra ); and
c. Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra )
7.19. The Plaintiffs satisfy the illustrative factors for grant of pro tem
security as set out in Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. TP Link
Technologies Co. Ltd. & Ors. , Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6256.
The factors being: (i) defendants’ knowledge of plaintiffs’ patents;
(ii) defendants’ engaging with the plaintiffs for obtaining a license;
(iii) the SEP status of the plaintiffs’ patents; (iv) defendants’
refusal to clear the way, and yet make unlicensed use of such
patents; (v) negotiations for two or more years; (vi) plaintiff is
having placed claim chart before the court to demonstrate
essentiality; (vii) defendants’ substantial business in China,
without payment of any royalties to the plaintiffs; (viii) local
manufacturing in India by the defendants without payment of
royalties; (ix) India is one of the biggest markets for the defendants
devices; and (x) counteroffers made by the defendants.
7.20. The Defendants ought to deposit security based on the offer of the
Plaintiffs, not its counteroffer. Reliance was placed upon the
decisions in Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( supra ) and Dolby
International AB & Anr. ( supra ) while making the above
submission. Therefore, the Defendants ought to deposit security as
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 18 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

per the Plaintiffs’ last offer made on for a
on all 3G, 4G and 5G compliant devices
sold in India. The said amount related to royalties payable for a
term of five years effective from , as well as sale of
devices as made in the past. As an alternate to a lump sum
payment, the Plaintiffs’ first offer of offered running
royalty payments for sale of 3G, 4G and 5G SEPs as
for 3G, for 4G multimode and for 5G
multimode.
7.21. The allegations of non-joinder of BlackBerry by the Defendants
are untenable as the Suit Patents are owned by Plaintiff No. 1 post
assignment from BlackBerry. Under Sections 48 and 108 of the
Act, a patent owner has the right to file an infringement action of
the patents held by it.
7.22. It is settled law not just in India, but also outside India, that hold-
out and delay by implementers is a tool used in the ‘war of
attrition’ to defeat the SEP holder. Reliance was placed upon the
decision in Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors. ( supra ) while
making the above submission.
7.23. The Defendants’ contention that there was no opportunity for the
Defendants to seek technical clarity from the originator of the
patents is misconceived. As stated
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 19 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

The four-way NDA was
further renewed voluntarily by the Parties on and
7.24.
Reliance was placed
upon the following while
making the above submission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 20 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

e.
7.25.
This is consistent with
the confidentiality regime ordered to be put in place by the Court
as upheld in the decision in Lava International Ltd. v.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson , SLP(C) 7533/2016.
7.26. The Plaintiffs initiated proceedings before the US Court on
23.07.2025 under 28 USC Section 1782, requesting the Court to
order BlackBerry to provide copies of its third-party license
agreements with manufacturers of wireless cellular devices. The
US Court allowed the request on 24.07.2025. However, the US
Court has made the disclosure of the said agreements permissible
on strict terms and conditions of confidentiality and limiting the
number of persons who can access the said agreements. As stated
earlier, during negotiations, the Plaintiffs have provided
information to the Defendants, in
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 21 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

, which supports the FRAND royalties proposed by the
Defendants.
7.27. There is no requirement for a plaintiff to produce PLAs, as pro tem
orders are not determinative of FRAND rates. A defendant has no
right of silence and cannot avoid duty to pay security by hiding
behind a demand of accessing third-party agreements. A pro tem
order is an equity as they restore the balance between the parties
and set right the asymmetric advantage that in implementor has
over an SEP holder, as the latter cannot seek an injunction without
first engaging the protracted negotiations. To maintain status quo
in the interregnum till the Court hears and decides the application
for a term injunction, which necessarily takes time due to the
complexity of the case. Reliance was placed upon the following
decisions while making the above submission:
a. Nokia Technologies OY ( supra );
b. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Ors. ( supra ); and
c. Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra )
SUR-REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANTS
8. The learned Counsel for the Defendants made the following
submissions:
8.1. The Plaintiffs reliance upon consent orders and pro tem orders
passed pursuant to ex parte ad interim injunction being issued in
SEP matters cannot bind the Defendants.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 22 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

8.2. The Plaintiffs assert that the Rules permit the grant of interim
deposits on the first day of hearing under Rule 5(v) of the Rules
but the Plaintiffs have conveniently evaded the other requirements
specified under the very same Rules i.e., Rule 4A(viii) of the Rules
whereby the Plaintiffs have to file their license agreements along
with the plaint itself. In Kanwar Singh Saina v. High Court of
Delhi , (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Court held that the “ first hearing ”
under the CPC is not the returnable date of summons or the initial
listing. Rather, the “ first hearing ” is the stage when the Court
applies its mind to the rival pleadings and documents for the
purpose of framing issues or considering evidence. Until that
stage, there is no occasion for the Court to judicially assess the
merits of the case.
8.3. While maintaining that third-party license agreements are not
relevant for the pro tem stage, the Plaintiffs for the very first time
are seeking to place BlackBerry’s third-party license agreements
without any application or following the procedure as mandated by
the CPC. The Plaintiffs have not placed on record the third-party
licensing agreements immediately upon coming into possession,
even though the Plaintiffs were admittedly in possession of the
said agreements prior to commencement of arguments in the
present Application. This deliberate withholding of material
documents disentitles the Plaintiffs from any equitable interim
relief and seeking to place reliance on them at the Rejoinder stage
is barred by law as under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 23 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

8.4. The Plaintiffs’ own Chartered Accountant (“ CA ”) has
acknowledged that the Defendants’ net worth has been increasing
over the years. The financial statements on record demonstrate that
the Defendants’ net worth is ₹5984 crores. In any case, financial
position of a company cannot be a consideration to order any
interim reliefs against the Defendants, without the Plaintiffs first
establishing a prima facie case in its favour. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in BKP Enterprise & Anr. v. Spiceject Limited ,
Neutral Citation: 2017:DHC:2339 while making the above
submission.
8.5. The Plaintiffs had failed to show admission of any technical claims
during pre-Suit negotiations and all offers and counteroffers made
during pre-Suit negotiations were meant to be confidential, without
prejudice to the Parties’ rights and inadmissible in evidence as
admission of any claims. All offers and counteroffers were for the
entire portfolio (including BlackBerry’s portfolio) and not only
what is presently owned by Plaintiff No. 1. As per Section 109 of
the Act, BlackBerry’s portfolio cannot be asserted in the present
Suit, as BlackBerry is not made a Party in the Suit.
8.6. The Plaintiffs have not filed third-party license agreements and,
therefore, are unable to show that the Defendants’ counteroffers
are too low. Any SEP holder is a willing licensor at a high royalty
rate and any implementer is a willing licensee at a low royalty rate,
but the real question is whether the parties are willing to license at
a royalty rate which is in fact FRAND. Thus, to decide willingness
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 24 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

one first has to determine what rate is FRAND and then find out
who is willing or unwilling to license at the FRAND rate. These
defenses go to the very root of the matter and cannot be brushed
aside or ignored while considering the grant of pro tem order.
Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Alcatel HC: Alcatel
Lucent SAS v. Amazon , [2024] EWHC 1921 (Pat) and
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. ,
( supra ) while making the above submission.
8.7. The mandatory disclosure of all third-party license agreements. In
Nokia Technologies OY v. Hisense Group Holdings Co. Ltd. &
Anr. , Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8511, the Court held that a
plaintiff asserting FRAND must produce all third-party license
agreements, and that such disclosure is a relevant and material
consideration while determining FRAND related reliefs.
8.8. The as relied upon by the
Plaintiffs is misleading as later confirmed by the Plaintiffs itself, it
did not have access to any third-party agreements of BlackBerry, at
the relevant time as is evident from averments made in the Plaint.
Therefore, the cannot be
relied upon.
8.9. The counteroffers made by the Defendants were expressly without
prejudice and it was mutually agreed that the same would fall
within the scope of the compromise discussions that are legally
barred from being relied upon as admission of any kind. Reliance
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 25 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

was placed upon the following clauses of the
:
a.
b.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 26 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

8.10. The documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs particularly: (i)
BlackBerry third-party agreements; and (ii) Economic Report by
Dr. Jon Putnam are not on record and therefore, cannot be relied
upon by the Plaintiffs at the Rejoinder stage.
REPLY TO SUR-REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFFS
9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
submissions:
9.1. Pro tem hearings are not a determination of FRAND rates payable
to the SEP holders. Hence, PLAs and any analysis of whether the
offers are FRAND are not relevant at this stage. Reliance was
placed upon the following decisions while making the above
submission:
a. Nokia Technologies OY ( supra );
b. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Mercury
Electronics & Anr. , Neutral Citation: 2014:DHC:5940;
c. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Gionee
Communication Equipment Co. Ltd. & Anr. , Neutral
Citation: 2022:DHC:3132; and
d. Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra )
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 27 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

The Plaintiffs did not have PLAs signed on BlackBerry’s behalf by
its erstwhile licensing agent, Teletry, at the time of filing of the
Plaint.
9.2. While making the second offer by the Plaintiffs on
9.3. It is settled law that the Plaintiffs must file only comparable PLAs,
and not all PLAs irrespective of whether they are comparable and
executed with similarly situated parties or not. Comparable PLAs
are PLAs executed with parties that are similarly situated as the
Defendants. The PLAs requested by the Plaintiffs in the US Court
are those signed by Teletry on behalf of BlackBerry with third-
party handset makers, as they are potentially comparable PLAs.
9.4. The Defendants’ reading of Hisense Group Holdings Co. Ltd.
( supra ) is misplaced as it directs production of all comparable
PLAs and does not direct disclosure of PLAs with third-parties that
are not similarly situated.
9.5. The Defendants have suppressed that the same request made by the
Defendants for discovery of all PLAs and not just comparable
PLAs with similarly situated parties has been rejected in
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Xiaomi Technology
& Ors. , order dated 08.03.2018 in CS(COMM) 434/2016.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 28 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

9.6. During negotiations,
Reliance
was placed upon the
while making the above submission.
9.7. The Defendants have their own licensed agreements with SEP
licensors. They can access such agreements for making
counteroffers and depositing security. The Defendants have
affirmed on oath that they are licensed to portfolios of other SEP
holders, such as Nokia, Interdigital, Qualcomm, Huawei, etc.
Reliance was placed upon the decision in Intex Technologies
(India) Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) , Neutral
Citation: 2023:DHC:2243-DB.
9.8. BlackBerry is not a necessary Party to this Suit as the present Suit
asserts the Suit Patents, which have been assigned to Plaintiff
No. 1. The embargo of Section 109 of the Act is applicable where
an exclusive licensee files a suit without making the patentee a
party.
9.9. The Defendants are habitual infringers, who settle disputes after
years of hold-out in the Court. Further, the Defendants have settled
after making pro tem security payments.
9.10. The Defendants have not offered security in the present Suit,
despite rejection of their counteroffers by the Plaintiffs. The
furnishing of security during negotiations from the moment the
counteroffer is rejected, is a non-derogable obligation of an
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 29 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

implementer. Unlike other patents, implementers necessarily use
SEPs and must take a license. Hence, they are bound by their own
FRAND obligation of furnishing security. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. ( supra ) while
making the above submission.
9.11. The Plaintiffs have shown both indirect and direct infringement,
through claim chart mapping and test reports. The Defendants have
not shown what alternative technology is being used by them, in
place of the Suit Patents. Reliance was placed upon Rule 3B(vi) of
the Rules while making the above submission.
9.12. The Defendants are misreading the Plaintiffs’ report on financial
condition. The CA report shows that while Defendant No. 2 has
earned profits, its overall net worth is negative, owing to the tax
rates and freezing of monies by Government authorities.
9.13. The Defendants reliance upon the decision in BKP Enterprise &
Anr. ( supra ) is misleading. The said decision was not an SEP case
and concerned with the issue of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the
CPC.
9.14. The Suit Patents solely belong to the Plaintiffs and hence, making
BlackBerry or amending the Suit is not required. Even in
negotiations, the Defendants participated in discussions after being
given assurance by BlackBerry that the Plaintiffs were negotiating
for the Suit Patents which BlackBerry owned under exclusive
license and authorization from BlackBerry.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 30 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

9.15. The Plaintiffs offered FRAND rates in negotiations, which were
supported by one comparable PLA and top-down methodology.
The Plaintiffs’
9.16. There is no finding that the Plaintiffs’ offers are FRAND compliant
yet, as the proceedings in India and Germany have only
commenced in July, 2025. It is irrelevant if the Defendants have
not initiated any proceedings for FRAND determination in any
country. The Defendants have undertaken to pay royalties at Court
determined FRAND rates. Further, the Defendants refused to
submit to arbitration or the offers made by the Plaintiffs and thus,
are evading proceedings which will determine the FRAND rates.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
MADE ON 24.04.2026
10. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
submissions:
10.1. The Defendants had claimed that pro tem security is granted in
cases where either there is already a previous license between the
parties, or when the defendants filed an action abroad for FRAND
rate-setting for the plaintiffs’ patents. As per the Defendants, they
had not sought FRAND rate-setting for the Suit Patents and that no
admission of any sort could be attributed to the Defendants.
10.2. On 02.03.2026, the Defendants filed a FRAND rate setting before
the Shenzhen Court seeking the following reliefs:
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 31 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

a. Confirm that the Plaintiffs are obligated to grant licenses to
users of their patents on FRAND terms, and that they shall
conduct license negotiations in good faith; and
b. Set a FRAND rate for China-wide license for 3G, 4G and
5G SEPs of Plaintiffs, in relation to mobile devices sold in
China.
10.3. In an e-mail dated 17.04.2026, the Defendants’ Counsel confirmed
that the Chinese Civil Suit concerns FRAND rate determination
for Chinese patents only.
10.4. The Defendants’ act of seeking rate-setting from Shenzhen Court
is an admission that the Plaintiffs have SEPs, and that royalties
must be paid thereon. The Division Bench in Nokia Technologies
OY ( supra ) did not distinguish between whether the action filed in
China was for entire global portfolio of patents, or a subset of
patents. Hence, the Defendants’ attempt at distinguishing Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra ) is now undone by their act of filing the
Chinese Civil Suit at the Shenzhen Court. The relevant paragraphs
of the decision in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ) have been
reproduced hereunder:
“82. Also, after expiry of the 2018 Agreement, Oppo
repeatedly made several counter-offers including the ones on
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX after detailed technical
discussions as well as agreed to make interim payments to
Nokia and even filed a suit in Chongqing China, for
determination of FRAND rates.
83. This Court is of the view that Oppo FRAND case
in China is a prima facie admission that Nokia does own
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 32 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

Standard Essential Patents and that Oppo must necessarily
license it against FRAND royalty payment.”
10.5. The Plaintiffs’ prima facie case on essentiality and infringement of
the Suit Patents for the purpose of pro tem security stands
cemented even further. The Defendants have admitted essentiality,
infringement and the need to pay license fee to Plaintiffs as
demonstrated by:
a. the act of negotiating with the Plaintiffs for nearly three
years;
b. the act of making multiple counteroffers and offering to pay
millions of dollars for a license to the Suit Patents;
c. the act of requesting the Shenzhen Court to determine the
FRAND rate for sales made in China; and
d. the act of seeking a declaration from the Shenzhen Court
that the Plaintiffs have a FRAND obligation to grant a
license to the Defendants.
10.6. The Chinese Civil Suit at the Shenzhen Court constitutes
admissions of essentiality for both India and China as:
a. the Defendants’ stand is that the Plaintiffs’ patents in China
are essential.
b. the Plaintiffs’ global portfolio comprises more than 100 SEP
families, which have counterpart applications both in India
and in China. In fact, the Suit Patents have corresponding
patents in China.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 33 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

c. the Chinese Civil Suit contains an implicit admission that
the Plaintiffs’ patents in China are essential. Since patents in
China overlap with the Suit Patents in India, the Suit Patents
in India are deemed essential.
10.7. The Chinese Civil Suit at Shenzhen Court seeks to enforce the
Plaintiffs’ FRAND obligations on a global basis including India to
grant a license and engage in good faith negotiations with the
Defendants, for the entire portfolio of SEPs and not just the patents
in China.
10.8. Accordingly, the present Application is liable to be allowed and the
Defendants shall make the payment of pro tem security for the Suit
Patents in order to secure the rights and interests of the Plaintiffs
during the pendency of the Suit.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
MADE ON 24.04.2026
11. The learned Counsel for the Defendants made the following
submissions:
11.1. The Chinese Civil Suit only pertains to Chinese patents, for China-
wide FRAND licensing terms, in respect of the Defendants’
devices sold in China only.
11.2. There is no admission of essentiality as the filing of the Chinese
Civil Suit in itself does not lead to any admission of essentiality of
the Plaintiffs’ Chinese patents. The Shenzhen Court will
necessarily determine which of the Chinese patents are essential to
the asserted standards, during the FRAND rate determination
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 34 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

exercise on the basis of evidence produced by the Parties. The next
date of hearing before the Shenzhen Court is 08.06.2026.
11.3. The filing of FRAND rate determination before the Shenzhen
Court does not warrant pro tem deposits in the present Suit. The
reference made with respect to the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the Defendants stating that none of the factors
present in the decision of Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ) were
satisfied in the present Suit. The Plaintiffs’ submission that filing
of a FRAND rate determination by Defendant No. 3 before the
Shenzhen Court, in itself should be construed against the
Defendants, is clearly misleading since Defendant No. 3 has only
sought for a FRAND determination for the Chinese territory unlike
in the decision in of Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ), wherein a
global FRAND rate determination was sought by the respondents
before the Chinese Court.
11.4. None of the below mentioned factors, which are prevalent in the
decision of Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ), are present in the
Suit:
a. There is no previous licensing arrangement between the
Parties, whereas in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ), a
previous license agreement which covered the suit patents
was in place and was never challenged for the three years
during which the licensing arrangement was in operation;
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 35 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

b. There is no assurance given by the Defendants to make any
interim payments as was done by the respondents in Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra );
c. There is no finding of infringement against the Defendants
in any of the proceedings instituted by the Plaintiffs, unlike
in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ) wherein in eleven out of
thirteen proceedings, the respondents were held to be
infringing the appellant’s patents; and
d. There was objective material in Nokia Technologies OY
( supra ), i.e., the previous license arrangement, at arrive at a
quantum for the pro tem deposit which is entirely was absent
in the present Suit, since the Plaintiffs refused to place its
third-party license agreements on record, while seeking pro
tem reliefs.
11.5. Admittedly, the Suit Patents have not been determined to be
essential to the asserted standard by any judicial forum. Further,
the Defendants have raised the challenged to essentiality and
validity of the Suit Patents, which will have to be considered even
at the stage of pro tem . Reliance was placed upon the decision in
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & Ors.
( supra ) while making the above submission.
11.6. The Plaintiffs have not provided any valuation for the Suit Patents
or even the portfolio owned by the Plaintiffs and instead sought
pro tem relief, which cannot be asserted as per Section 109 of the
Act.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 36 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

11.7. There is neither any finding of infringement against the
Defendants by any Court qua the Suit Patents nor any Court or
authority has held that the licensing rate sought by the Plaintiffs is
FRAND complaint.
11.8. Accordingly, the present Application is liable to be dismissed and
the Defendants shall not make the payment of pro tem security for
the Suit Patents.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
12. The Court in several decisions held that to balance the equities
between the parties, the Court has the power to pass a pro tem order as a
temporary arrangement without going into the merits of the case before it.
The Division Bench of this Court in Xiaomi Technology and Anr. v.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) and Anr. , order dated
16.12.2014 in FAO(OS) 522/2014, held that the measure of the infringement
would be the amount which the SEP holder would then have to pay to the
implementer / licensee as per policy of the SEP holder while granting
licenses. The Court further noted that the measure of damages for
infringement of a patent would be the revenue loss caused to the patent
holder which it would have received through royalty while granting the
license. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
“12. We are passing the pro tem order keeping in view the fact that
treating the averments in the plaint to be true, the adverse effect
upon the first respondent would be the finances which would
otherwise flow to the coffers of the first respondent if ultimately it is
found that the appellants is infringing the patent of the first
respondent. The measure of the infringement would be the amount
which the appellants would then have to pay to the first respondent
as per policy of the first respondent while granting licenses. It is
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 37 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

trite that the measure of damages for infringement of a patent
would be the revenue loss to the patentee which it would have got
by way of royalty while granting the license.
13. Striking a balance between the right of the appellants, which
even as per the plaint, is concededly in business in India since July,
2014, we dispose of the appeal directing that as a pro tem measure
the appellants would be permitted to import and sell the devices
containing chipsets sold to it by Qualcomm upon the following
terms:
(1) The pro tem measure would be restricted to import and sale of
devices in which Qualcomm chipsets are used.
(2) By January 5, 2015, Rs. 100 per device imported would be
deposited in the name of the Registrar General of this Court by the
appellants, which would be kept in a fixed deposit by the Registrar
General; term of the deposit being three months.
(3) Affidavit would be filed by January 5, 2015 disclosing the
import of devices in India containing chipset of Qualcomm pursuant
to the present order.
(4) Particulars of invoices of purchase of chipsets from Qualcomm
shall be disclosed in the affidavit.
(5) Imports made in the month of January, 2015 would likewise be
disclosed by way of an affidavit and Rs. 100/- per device deposited
in the name of the Registrar General of this Court by February 03,
2015.”
13. In Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. & Ors. ( supra ), the Division
Bench of this Court noted that the SEP patent regime establishes a
transparent negotiation between the two parties, i.e., the licensor (patentee)
and licensee (implementer). As per the Court, SEP regime incorporates
mutual reciprocal obligations on both the SEP holder as well as on the
implementer and the obligations cannot be cast upon the SEP holder alone.
The SEP regime balances the equities between the SEP holder / patentee and
the implementer so that both parties operate on an equal footing. The Court
also noted that the SEP holder would be considered a willing licensor only if
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 38 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

it gives a FRAND offer along with, in certain situations necessary
information subject to confidentiality agreement. The licensor offering
exorbitant royalty rates will not be considered a willing licensor. The Court
further notes that a licensee can take recourse to their own license
agreements executed with other SEP holder / licensors for determining an
appropriate FRAND rate which it would be willing to pay or to determine if
the rate offered by SEP holder is based on FRAND terms or not. The Court
also notes that the licensee has an option either to accept the licensor’s offer
or to give a counteroffer along with an appropriate security to establish that
he is a willing licensee. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
“ 68. Accordingly, the Standard Essential Patent regime envisages
a candid and transparent negotiation between a willing licensor
(Patentee) and willing licensee (implementer).
69.A licensor will be considered a willing licensor only if it gives a
FRAND offer and in certain situations provides information
necessary, subject to confidentiality agreement, for a licensee to
offers a supra-FRAND offer i.e. exorbitant royalty rates, it will not
be considered a willing licensor.
70.Similarly, an implementer has no right of silence or inaction at
this stage. It is not correct to suggest that without access to other
agreements executed by the Patentee no counter-offers can be made.
Normally, an implementer can take recourse to its own license
agreements executed with other Standard Essential Patent
proprietors/licensors, to determine an appropriate FRAND rate
that it would be willing to pay or to determine if the rate offered by
an Standard Essential Patent proprietor is FRAND or not . This is
evident from the judgment of the Dutch Court of Appeal in
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wiko SAS [Case Number 200.219.487/01
decided on 02.07.2019] wherein it has been held as under:-
“4.37. Wiko pointed out that it does not have the licence
agreements that Philips concluded with other parties for the
same patent portfolio, so that Wiko is unable to demonstrate
that Philips’ proposal is not FRAND. Even apart from the
fact that according to the above findings, Wiko failed on
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 39 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

several points to substantiate its arguments and furnish
evidence of its arguments and its defence should already fail
on this basis, this point of view does not hold, Wiko
concluded licence agreements for UMTS and LTE portfolios
with Qualcomm, Huawei and Nokia. By providing insight
into the fees and stipulations agreed upon with those parties
in relation to (the value of) the SEPs held by those parties,
Wiko could have substantiated (a suspicion of) the alleged
fact that Philips’ offer was not FRAND and the alleged fact
that its own counter-offer was FRAND; however, Wiko
failed to do this. Under those circumstances, the Court of
Appeal does not see any reason to reverse the burden of
proof or to assume an increased duty to contend facts and
circumstances for Philips, as Wiko argued.”
*
72.Further, the implementer has to either accept the licensor’s
offer or give a counter offer along with an appropriate security in
accordance therewith to prove its bonafides as in the interregnum
it cannot freely sell its devices using such Standard Essential
Patents. If no ad-hoc royalty is paid during the interregnum, such
party benefits, to the disadvantage of other willing licensees, and
gets an unfair competitive edge in the market .
73.Accordingly, FRAND obligations have been interpreted to
impose a burden not just on Standard Essential Patent holders, but
on implementers as well. The Standard Essential Patents regime
incorporates mutual reciprocal obligations on both the Essential
Patent holder and the implementer. It is not a ‘one way street’
where obligations are cast on the Essential Patent holder alone .
Consequently, the Standard Essential Patents regime balances the
equities between the Patentee and the implementer and ensures a
level playing field. This Court is also of the view that the conduct of
the parties during negotiations is one of the key factors to be kept in
mind while assessing whether a potential licensor and licensee were
a willing licensor or a willing licensee. The said finding is normally
fact sensitive.
*
114. Further, the learned Single Judge in Nokia Vs. Oppo (supra)
has set an impossibly high bar for admission in a case of Standard
Essential Patent FRAND infringement, i.e., there has to be an
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 40 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

unequivocal admission on (i) essentiality and validity of the suit
patents (ii) fact of utilization (iii) fact that such utilization, absent
payment of liability would amount to infringement (iv) that the
royalty rate proposed by the Plaintiff was FRAND. If there was an
unequivocal admission on all four counts, there would be no
necessity to file a suit for infringement at all and otherwise also,
same would mean seeking/passing of a final decree at the interim
stage!
115. In the opinion of this Court, the four-fold test casts an onerous
burden upon the Standard Essential Patentee and that too at the
interim stage itself. In fact, the said burden is completely alien to the
patent jurisdiction and does not apply even in normal patent suits.
116. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge in
Nokia Vs. Oppo (supra) judgment does not consider or discuss the
Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits 2022, even when the
said rules specifically empower this Court to pass deposit orders
even on the first date of hearing.
117. Moreover, if the four-fold test stipulated in paragraph 77 of the
Nokia Vs. Oppo (supra) is applied, then effectively there will be no
interim order like a temporary injunction or conditional order of
deposit in the Standard Essential Patent suits. Such a view, in the
Court’s opinion, would be contrary to Section 48 of Patents Act,
Code of Civil Procedure as well as Standard Essential Patent
regime which is aimed at achieving a uniform standard in
technologies. If the four-fold test is accepted, there will be no
incentive to innovate and it will have a ‘Domino Effect’ as pointed
out hereinabove.
Consequently, the four-fold test in Nokia vs. Oppo (supra) is neither
applicable at Order 39 Rule 10 CPC stage nor at Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 CPC stage. ”
14. This Court in Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ), held that the
Court is empowered to pass a pro tem order as a temporary arrangement
without a detailed examination of the merits of the case to the purpose of
balancing the equities between the parties in dispute. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 41 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

“ 23. From a plain reading of the aforesaid extracts, it is
abundantly clear that the Court has the power, in order to balance
the equities between the parties, to pass a pro tem order as a
temporary arrangement without a detailed examination of the merits
of the case. The Division Bench highlighted the difference between
the level of scrutiny required for the purposes of passing a pro tem
order and an order of interim injunction.
*
32. Placing reliance on the judgements of the Division Bench in
Intex v. Ericsson (supra) and Nokia v. Oppo (supra), the Co-
ordinate Bench held that in order to balance equities between the
parties, Court has the power to pass orders and put in place a
temporary arrangement, without a detailed explanation on merits. ”
15. The Division Bench of this Court, in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ),
held that generally a pro tem deposit should be directed after a prima facie
finding of essentiality as well as validity of the suit patents is established.
But if there arises a prima facie presumption that the challenge to
essentiality and validity of patents in questions is merely an afterthought,
these circumstances created a prima facie presumption in favour of
plaintiffs’ patents sufficient to justify to direct a pro tem security deposit
even without a full prima facie adjudication on essentiality and validity . The
relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“81. Normally speaking, a pro-tem deposit should be directed only
after a prima facie finding of essentiality and validity of the suit
patents has been recorded, but in the present case where Oppo itself
licensed the Standard Essential Patents of Nokia against royalty
payments running into XXXXXXX under the 2018 Agreement over a
three year period and admitted its obligation in law to secure a new
licence agreement commencing July, 2021 for Standard Essential
Patents of Nokia, there arises a prima facie presumption that the
challenge to essentiality and validity of Nokia’s patents is merely an
afterthought. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 42 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

Nokia that at this prima facie stage it would be fair to infer that no
one pays good money for generally disputed patents. In fact, it was
Oppo’s case in its pleading before the learned Single Judge that
during the course of pre-suit negotiations, the new licensing rate
offered by Nokia was unreasonably higher than what was previously
agreed to.
*
NON-FURNISHING OF COMPARABLE PLAs IS IRRELEVANT AT
THIS STAGE
88. As regards non-furnishing of comparable PLAs is concerned,
this Court is of the view that the said issue is irrelevant as the Court
is not directing Oppo to pay the FRAND rate at this stage. Even the
learned Single Judge has noted held that Nokia ought to have
supplied its PLAs to Oppo.”
16. The present Suit is a SEP dispute between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs are asserting SEPs directed to technologies
incorporated into 3G, 4G and 5G cellular standards. The Plaintiffs are
seeking to license a portfolio of cellular SEPs comprising the Suit Patents.
DISCHARGE OF FRAND OBLIGATIONS
17. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that they have shown
willingness and have discharged FRAND obligations to ETSI regarding the
Defendants’ use of 4G and 5G SEPs. As per the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have
provided detailed information as well as support to the Defendants to equip
it with all required information to enable them to execute a FRAND license
agreement with the Plaintiffs.
VALIDITY OF THE SUIT AND I.A. NO. 17510/2025
18. The learned Counsel for the Defendants argued that the present lis is
in context of a portfolio of alleged SEPs being the Suit Patents, part of
which is admittedly still owned by BlackBerry, and the reliefs in the Plaint
relating to injunction, damages, declarations of FRAND offer(s), and other
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 43 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

reliefs are in relation to the Suit Patents, part of which is admittedly still
owned by BlackBerry. As per the Defendants, in spite of the aforesaid,
BlackBerry has not been made a Party to the present Suit. Therefore, the
Defendants submitted that since making BlackBerry a Party is a mandatory
requirement under Section 109 of the Act, and without any justification, the
Suit is not maintainable. However, the Plaintiffs have submitted the details
that the suit patents are owned by Plaintiffs post assignment from
BlackBerry. Therefore, under Section 109 of the Act, the Plaintiff can file
the present Suit without making the patentee a party.
19. The learned Counsel for the Defendants further submitted that since
the reliefs sought under the present Application cannot be granted under
Section 151 of the CPC and, therefore, the present Application should be
dismissed on this ground alone. As per the Defendants, it is settled law that
the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the CPC are
procedural powers and not substantive powers and, therefore, it is a
procedural provision that enables a party to have the proceedings of a
pending suit to be conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and
equity. Section 151 of the CPC cannot be invoked when the CPC already
contains a specific provision regarding the relief sought. Therefore, Section
151 of the CPC ought not to be applied mechanically.
20. Since there are many provisions for interim relief including Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, the Plaintiffs
ought not to circumvent these provisions by claiming that the proceedings
might be excessively prolonged. This contention is contrary to the settled
law and principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed upon the decision
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 44 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

in Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & Ors.
( supra ). The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“45. The plaintiffs had also filed applications styled as applications
under Section 151 of the CPC (being IA No. 17315/2021 and IA No.
17457/2021) along with the aforementioned applications under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC…
46. It is apparent from the above that the alternative prayers made
in IA No. 17314/2021 in CS(COMM) No. 692/2021 and IA No.
17456/2021 in CS(COMM) No. 707/2021 (being the applications
filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2) are similar to the prayers
made in the applications styled as applications under Section 151 of
the CPC.
47. It is also apparent that the prayers in the aforementioned
applications are in the nature of seeking interim orders for securing
part of the claims and in effect as a condition for not interdicting use
of the ad interim stage. The nature of the orders sought thus falls
within the broad scope of injunctive orders under Order XXXIX of
the CPC.
*
51. The expression “pro tem” literally means ‘for the time being’ in
Latin. It is clear that pro tem orders are interim or ad-interim
orders. The applications filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of
the CPC also sought ad-interim orders till the pendency of the
applications seeking directions for payments of amounts pending
consideration of Thus, essentially, the plaintiffs had sought ad-
interim orders.”
21. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that a pro tem
security arrangement is neither an award on damages nor it is an equivalent
of a FRAND arrangement and unlike the holder of a non-SEP, an SEP holder
cannot make available terms other than what are FRAND. The learned
Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submitted that to restore the balance
between the Parties, the Court has devised and has upheld the notion of pro
tem security payments, which is very different from interim injunction or a
FRAND license. However, this Court in Dolby International AB & Anr.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 45 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

( supra ) held that “ in order to balance the equities between the parties, it was
empowered to pass a pro-tem order as a temporary arrangement without a
detailed examination of the merits of the case. ”. Therefore, this Court is
empowered to hear the present Application in order to balance the equities
between the parties and to establish a temporary arrangement.
EARLIER COMMUNICATION / OFFER / COUNTEROFFER
22. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants
have engaged in FRAND discussions with the Plaintiffs and have not
disputed their obligation to execute a license for the Suit Patents against the
payment of appropriate FRAND royalties. The learned Counsel for the
Defendants submitted that the Defendants were deprived of an opportunity
to seek clarity regarding technical aspects of the Suit Patents as well as the
value of the portfolio under license.
23. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the four-way
NDA was renewed voluntarily by the Parties on and
The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs also submitted that the Plaintiffs have
extensively discussed the Suit Patents in-depth on several occasions with the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs after establishing contact with the Defendants
have honoured all FRAND obligations vis-à-vis the Defendants .
24. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs
provided to the Defendants
The Plaintiffs shared
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 46 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

25. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submitted that the
Plaintiffs have provided detailed explanations on the rationale and
computation of the royalties proposed in its offers made to the Defendants.
26. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs
have offered to resolve the terms of the proposed FRAND license agreement
through alternative dispute resolution through their
The
relevant extract from the is reproduced hereunder:
As per the
27. Per contra , the learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the
Plaintiffs have failed to provide any valuation for the Suit Patents. The
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 47 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

valuation of the Suit Patents is a relevant factor in a SEP / FRAND dispute
of the present Suit. It is also an important factor for the pro tem deposits
while keeping technical issues aside for a moment. Therefore, the learned
Counsel for the Defendants submitted that in the absence of such valuation
as well as any objective material to justify the same, a technical assessment
of the Suit Patents, if made would not be of any purpose as in the absence of
FRAND rates, no interim reliefs / pro tem is possible.
28. The Defendants’ failure to show interest after sending the letter dated
30.09.2025 for past two years post the initiation of license discussions
thereby is a relevant factor that indicates their unwillingness. After having
technical discussions and receiving the shared
for the portfolio of the Suit Patents, the mediation provides a medium
for the Defendant to discuss their grievances with the Plaintiffs.
THIRD-PARTY LICENSE AGREEMENTS
29. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that a bare perusal
of the Plaint shows that the Plaintiffs do not know the actual FRAND rate
for the portfolio that they seek to license. The Plaintiffs state that the
Plaintiffs do not have access to any past license agreements that BlackBerry
or its erstwhile licensor, Teletry might have entered . The relevant extract of
the Plaint is reproduced hereunder:
“13…. BlackBerry had entered into a strategic licensing agreement
with a company called Teletry, which enabled Teletry to sublicense
a broad range of BlackBerry’s Cellular SEPs. Pursuant to the said
agreement…, and prior to Malikie’s acquisition… BlackBerry’s
portfolio of cellular SEPs had been licensed to several
implementers. The Plaintiffs do not possess these license
agreements…”
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 48 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

30. As per the contentions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have not
executed any third-party license agreements of their own as they have not
placed any such license agreements on record. Therefore, the learned
Counsel for the Defendants submitted that in the absence of any third-party
license, the negotiations between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, both pre-
Suit stage as well as the present lis, are based on conjectures and surmises
about the value of the Suit Patents, which as per the Defendants cannot be
accepted at face value. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted
that the Plaintiffs’ claim is not supported by any comparable licenses; an
approach that has been recognized by this Court, to ascertain whether the
rates offered by a patentee are FRAND or not. Moreover, it also implies that
the Plaintiffs were clearly making bald claims during negotiations,
, the Defendants were devoid of
any opportunity to seek clarity from the original proprietor regarding the
technical claim and value of the Suit Patents sought to be licensed.
31. Per contra , the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the
Defendants’ objection on non-production of third-party license agreements
is misconceived and their contention that pro tem security cannot be directed
without production of the Plaintiffs’ third-party license agreements is
untenable.
32. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the value of the
Suit Patents and the third-party license agreements have no role to play in
determination of pro tem security as pro tem security is a temporary measure
put in place to protect the interest of the SEP holder and is not a FRAND
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 49 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

arrangement. The purpose of pro tem security is to secure the Plaintiffs’
final claim for damages against the Defendants especially when Defendant
No. 1 has no assets in India and the financial position of the Defendants’
operational entities in India is precarious.
33. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has submitted that the third-
party license agreements are confidential and contain sensitive information
concerning competitors of the Defendants, which may become relevant at a
later stage for issue determination. According to established law, these
agreements are not pertinent to the resolution of the pro tem security
application. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs are required to submit
the financial details associated with the existing license agreements before
the Court and the Plaintiffs’ failure to do so, precludes the Court to
determine the quantum of the pro tem deposit. The Plaintiffs on the other
hand contend that the value of the Suit Patents is substantiated by the top-
down methodology and emphasize that therefore, objective material has
been presented to the Defendants for assessing FRAND royalties payable for
a license to the Suit Patents.
34. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that since the patents
were licensed to third-parties prior to their acquisition by the Plaintiffs from
BlackBerry and prior to the exclusive license obtained by Plaintiff No. 1
from BlackBerry for the remaining SEPs still owned by BlackBerry which
authorized Plaintiff No. 1 to license them to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
were not in possession of any third-party license agreements for the Suit
Patents.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 50 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

35. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submitted that the
Plaintiffs approached BlackBerry and Teletry seeking access to the said
third-party license agreements, however, the confidentiality clauses in these
license agreements prevented BlackBerry and / or Teletry from making a
unilateral disclosure to the Plaintiffs.
36. Additionally, the Plaintiffs, before the US Court requested the Court
to order BlackBerry to provide copies of its third-party license agreements
with manufacturers of wireless cellular devices which the US Court allowed
on 24.07.2025. The US Court on strict terms and conditions of
confidentiality has made the disclosure of the said agreements and also
limited the number of persons who can access the said agreements.
37. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants
shall make these agreements available at a later stage for assessment of
FRAND issues that are necessary for trial and final arguments and not the
purposes of determination of pro tem security.
38. In view of the above, the question that requires consideration is
whether the PLAs are required to determine the pro tem . This issue has been
addressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nokia Technologies OY
( supra ) wherein it was held that non-furnishing the comparable PLAs is
irrelevant at stage of pro tem . The relevant paragraph is reproduced
hereunder:
“NON-FURNISHING OF COMPARABLE PLAS IS IRRELEVANT
AT THIS STAGE 88.⁠ ⁠As regards non-furnishing of comparable PLAs
is concerned, this Court is of the view that the said issue is
irrelevant as the Court is not directing Oppo to pay the FRAND rate
at this stage. Even the learned Single Judge has not held that Nokia
ought to have supplied its PLAs to Oppo.”
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 51 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

39. Additionally, in Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ), this Court
reiterated the following:
“27.⁠ ⁠The Division Bench specifically held that non-furnishing of the
comparable third-party license agreements is irrelevant as the
Court, at the stage of determining the pro tem deposit, is not
determining FRAND rate. The relevant paragraph is set out
below:…..”
*
38. From an analysis of the aforesaid judgements passed by the
Division Benches of this Court in Intex v. Ericsson (supra), Nokia v.
Oppo (supra) and Guangdong Oppo v. Interdigital Technology
(supra), the following legal principles can be culled out: -
“……. IX. There is no requirement for the patent owner to
furnish any third party licensing agreements to the
implementor at the stage of negotiations or at the stage of
determining pro tem deposit.”
*
47. From an analysis of the aforesaid correspondence exchanged
between the parties, the following aspects can be discerned: -
“….vii. Lava kept on insisting that Dolby should provide
third-party confidential licensing agreements to Lava, which
was unjustified.”
40. Therefore, the submission of the Defendants that to determine the pro
tem in the present case, third-party license agreements need to be submitted
by the Plaintiffs, cannot be accepted.
41. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Intex Technologies
(India) Ltd. ( supra ) has held that the implementer has an option to
determine the FRAND rate from its own license agreements executed with
other SEP proprietors / licensors. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
hereunder:
“70.⁠ ⁠Similarly, an implementer has no right of silence or inaction at
this stage It is not correct to suggest that without access to other
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 52 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

agreements executed by the Patentee no counter-offers can be made.
Normally, an implementer can take recourse to its own license
agreements executed with other Standard Essential Patent
proprietors/licensors, to determine an appropriate FRAND rate that
it would be willing to pay or to determine if the rate offered by an
Standard Essential Patent proprietor is FRAND or not…”
42. Therefore, based on Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ), and recently in
Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ), it is well settled that an
implementer has no right to ask for the production of third-party license
agreements at the stage of determining pro tem security.
43. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, this Court is of the view
that, I.A. No. 17510/2025 can be decided the without the requirement of
such third-party agreements and that such third-party agreements are not
relevant for determination of the present Application.
DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT FURNISHED SECURITY PAYMENT
44. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants
have neither furnished security to the Plaintiffs, nor have the Defendants
given an account of the total number of 3G, 4G and 5G devices
manufactured and sold by the Defendants and the revenues earned by the
Defendants through such activities despite the rejection of the Defendants’
counteroffer. This is an obligation that the Defendants ought to have
honoured at the negotiations stage, from the moment the Defendants’
counteroffer was rejected by the Plaintiffs.
BUSINESS MODELADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS
45. This Court notes that Defendant No.1 is the parent company, which is
based incorporated in Cayman Islands and does not have any assets in India.
The Defendant No. 2 is the Indian subsidiary of Defendant No. 1 and
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 53 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the Chinese arms of Defendant No. 1 and they
also do not have any assets in India.
46. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that financial records
of Defendant No. 2 do not inspire confidence according to the regulatory
disclosures made to the Registrar of Companies and, therefore, the Plaintiffs
raise questions regarding the Defendants’ ability or inability to secure the
Suit Patents.
PRIMA FACIE CASE BY THE PLAINTIFFS
47. Based on the above cited judgements, it is established that the grant of
pro tem security also requires the Plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case in
their favour. The Plaintiffs have to satisfy he Court on the factors required to
prove the prima facie case.
48. To establish if Plaintiff No. 1 has made out a prima facie case in
respect of validity, essentiality and infringement of the Suit Patents, this
Court needs to examine the three factors: (i) validity of the Suit Patents; (ii)
essentiality of the Suit Patents; and (iii) infringement of the Suit Patents by
the Defendants.
Validity of the Suit Patents
Indian Patent No. IN 283303 titled as “A METHOD FOR PROVIDING
REPETITIONS ACK/NACK FROM A USER EQUIPMENT” (“ IN’303 ”)
49. The Suit Patent, IN ‘303 was published on 16.07.2010 and is valid
upto 2027. The Suit Patent, IN’303 pertains to long-term evolution
architecture and in particular to the acknowledgement of medium access
control packet data unit in a long-term evolution architecture.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 54 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

50. The claimed method is initiated with receipt of message by the use
equipment followed by transmitting a first acknowledgement / negative
acknowledgment (“ ACK / NACK ”) response in a first subframe utilizing a
first ACK / NACK resource, and transmitting a plurality of additional ACK /
NACK responses, each of the plurality of additional ACK / NACK
responses is transmitted to a respective subframe, utilizing a second ACK /
NACK resource where the second ACK / NACK resource is different from
the first ACK / NACK resource. The independent Claim No. 1 of IN’303 is
reproduced hereunder:
“1. A method for providing repetitions of acknowledgement or
negative acknowledgement from a user equipment, comprising the
steps of:
responsive to receipt of a message by the user equipment (1100):
transmitting a first ACK/NACK response in a first subframe
utilizing a first ACK/NACK resource, and
transmitting a plurality of additional ACK/ NACK responses,
each of the plurality of additional ACK/NACK responses being
transmitted in a respective subframe utilizing a second ACK/NACK
resource, characterized in that the second ACK/NACK resource is
different from the first ACK/NACK resource.”
Indian Patent No. IN 317530 titled as “A USER EQUIPMENT FOR
DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION” (“ IN’530 ”)
51. The Suit Patent, IN’530 was published on 23.11.2011 and is valid
upto 2029. The Suit Patent, IN’530 pertains to a user equipment adapted to
control a short discontinuous reception (“ DRX ”) timer that is comprising of
a communication sub-system adapted to communicate with a network
element and to receive a medium access control element (“ MAC ”) and a
processor where the processor is adapted to determine that the MAC control
element is received and a short DRX cycle is configured, responsive to the
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 55 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

determination the processor further checks whether a short DRX timer is
running. Upon checking the status of the short DRX cycle timer, if the short
DRX cycle timer is not already running, or restart the short DRX cycle timer
if it is currently running. Claim No. 1 of IN’530 patent is reproduced
hereunder:
“1. A user equipment (900) for discontinuous reception 'DRX'
comprising:
a communications subsystem (940) adapted to communicate
with a network element (1010) and to further receive a medium
access control 'MAC' control element; and
a processor (1030) configured to determine that the MAC
control element (470) is received,
responsive to the determination that the MAC control element
is received, determine that a short DRX cycle is configured, and
responsive to the determination that the short DRX cycle is
configured, start a short DRX cycle timer associated with the short
DRX cycle if the short DRX cycle timer is not running and restart
the short DRX cycle timer if the short DRX cycle timer is running.”
Indian Patent No. IN 335982 titled as “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
DETERMINING ESTABLISHMENT CAUSES” (“ IN’982 ”)
52. The Suit Patent, IN’982 was published on 23.11.2012 and is valid
upto 2033. The Suit Patent, IN’982 pertains to setting establishment cause
(“ EC ”) in the context of a circuit switched (“ CS ”) fallback procedure in
evolved packet system (“ EPS ”) enabled devices. Claim No. 1 claims a
method in an EPS that is comprising of generating, in a non-access stratum
(“ NAS ”) protocol layer (104), a NAS service request message comprising of
an extended service request and identifying a service type related to CS
fallback. Setting, in an access stratum protocol layer, a radio resource
control (“ RRC ”) EC of an RRC connection request message wherein the EC
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 56 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

is based upon the service type related to CS fallback identified by the NAS
service request message. Once a service type of mobile originating CS
fallback is generated, the RRC EC (204) is set to mobile originating data.
Claim No. 1 of IN’982 reproduced hereunder:
“1. A method in an evolved packet system (EPS), comprising:
generating, in a non-access stratum (NAS) protocol layer
(104), a NAS service request message comprising an EXTENDED
SERVICE REQUEST and identifying a service type related to
circuit-switched (CS) Jal/back; and
setting, in an access stratum (AS) protocol layer (110), a
radio resource control (RRC) establishment cause (EC) (204) of an
RRC CONNECTION REQUEST message, the EC (204) based upon
the service type related to CS fall back identified by the NAS service
request message, wherein when a service type of "mobile originating
(MO) CS fallback" is generated, the RRC EC (204) is set to "MO
data".”
53. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Suit Patents,
which are acquired from BlackBerry are globally, one of the strongest and
time-tested portfolios and also have been previously licensed by industry’s
leading implementers such as Samsung, Apple, LG, Huawei etc.
54. The learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that submissions
concerning the invalidity of the Suit Patents were made as part of their
response to the Application for interim relief (I.A. No. 17509/2025).
Furthermore, Counsel contended that the Plaintiffs' assertion regarding the
strength and prior licensing of the Suit Patents by prominent industry
implementers cannot be substantiated, as the relevant third-party license
agreements have not been placed on record.
55. Given that the Suit Patents represent fundamental technology for
wireless cellular communication and considering the Plaintiffs have
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 57 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

provided ,
a detailed inquiry regarding the validity of the Suit Patents is not necessary
and they are deemed prima facie valid.
Essentiality of the Suit Patents
56. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs
have absolutely no basis for claiming FRAND compliance, and the Plaintiffs
have no knowledge of the alleged licensing arrangements with the
aforementioned entities, if any.
57. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs
have been engaged with the Defendants since October 2023. At the time, the
Plaintiffs had acquired a portion of BlackBerry’s cellular SEPs but had not
yet acquired the rights to sub-license the rest of the BlackBerry’s cellular
SEPs. After acquisition of the said rights, the Plaintiffs have been
negotiating a license for the Suit Patents since January 2024. The portfolio
comprises patents relating to 3G, 4G and 5G standards. The Plaintiffs’
declarations have been made identifying such patents as essential or
potentially essential intellectual property rights in accordance with the ETSI.
58. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs
have filed the claim charts in the present Suit for the Suit Patents. Further,
the Plaintiffs have made declarations to the ETSI, declaring that the Suit
Patents amongst other patents included in the portfolio of Suit Patents, as
being essential / potentially essential to the 3G, 4G and 5G standards.
59. At the hearing of 24.04.2026, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs
submitted that the Defendants have filed a FRAND rate-setting before the
Shenzhen Court on 02.03.2026 seeking the following reliefs:
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 58 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

a. Confirm that the Plaintiffs are obligated to grant licenses to users of
their patents on FRAND terms, and that they shall conduct license
negotiations in good faith; and
b. Set a FRAND rate for China-wide license for 3G, 4G and 5G SEPs of
Plaintiffs, in relation to mobile devices sold in China.
60. Further, the Defendant thought an e-mail dated 17.04.2026 sent to
Plaintiffs, confirmed that the Chinese Civil Suit concerns FRAND rate
determination for Chinese patents only.
61. The submissions made in foreign jurisdiction are acceptable in Indian
Courts as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Nokia Technologies
OY ( supra ) relied on the defendants’ FRAND case filed in China to
determine the essentiality of the patents in question. Further, the Court did
not distinguish between whether the action filed in China was for entire
global portfolio of patents or a subset of patents. The relevant paragraphs of
the decision in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ) have been reproduced
hereunder:
“82. Also, after expiry of the 2018 Agreement, Oppo repeatedly
made several counter-offers including the ones on
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX after detailed technical discussions as
well as agreed to make interim payments to Nokia and even filed a
suit in Chongqing China, for determination of FRAND rates.
83. This Court is of the view that Oppo FRAND case in
China is a prima facie admission that Nokia does own Standard
Essential Patents and that Oppo must necessarily license it against
FRAND royalty payment.”
62. Accordingly, the Defendants' assertion that the Chinese Civil Suit is
limited solely to Chinese patents, involves China-wide FRAND licensing
terms, and concerns only devices sold within China, cannot be accepted.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 59 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

Therefore, the Plaintiffs have made a prima facie case on essentiality of the
Suit Patents for the purpose of pro tem security.
63. Hence, based on the FRAND rate-setting before the Shenzhen Court,
claim charts filed in the present proceedings for the Suit Patents and
declarations made to the ETSI, declaring the Suit Patents as being essential /
potentially essential to the 3G, 4G and 5G standards, the Plaintiffs have
prima facie established the essentiality of the Suit Patents. The Plaintiffs
have prima facie also established the essentiality of the Suit Patents based
on the documents placed on record by the Plaintiffs.
Infringement of the Suit Patents
64. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants
have admitted on their websites that their devices are compliant with the 4G
and 5G standards, including the representative list of devices referenced in
the Suit.
65. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the claim charts
filed show essentiality of the Suit Patents to the 4G and 5G standards, which
conclusively show that the Defendants’ devices use the technology covered
under the Suit Patents.
66. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs further submitted that the
Defendants have failed to execute a license on FRAND terms after the
Plaintiffs’ best efforts to negotiate a license since October 2023 and the
Defendants have been unwilling to accept any of the Plaintiffs’ licensing
offers with respect to the Suit Patents.
67. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that there was prior
knowledge of the rights of Plaintiffs in the present SEP to the Defendants as
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 60 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

the Defendants have widespread global operations, management of their
own portfolio of patents, and the experience of intellectual property
litigation in several countries.
68. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Defendants’
websites and product packaging declare that the devices of the Defendants
are in conformant with 4G and 5G standards. The Plaintiffs have referred to
the Defendants’ catalogue of products and the following non-exhaustive list
of such devices sold in India was relied on:
a. Xiaomi Series: Xiaomi 15 Ultra, Xiaomi 14 Civi Limited Edition, etc.
b. Redmi Series: Redmi Note 14 Pro, Redmi Note 14 5G, Redmi Note
13 Pro+ 5G; Redmi Note 13 Pro; Redmi Note 13; Redmi 13C 5G,
Redmi A4 5G, Redmi 14C 5G, etc.
c. POCO Series: POCO X6 Pro; POCO X6 Neo; POCO X7 pro; POCO
X7; POCO M6, POCO F6 5G, etc .
69. As submitted by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants’ websites and product
packaging show that the devices of the Defendants are in conformant with
4G and 5G standards.
70. The Plaintiffs relied upon the following information provided on the
website of the Defendants:
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 61 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

a. Xiaomi 15 Ultra (https://www.mi.com/in/product/xiaomi-15-
ultra/specs)
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 62 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

b. Redmi Note 13 Pro+ 5G https://www.mi.com/global/product/redmi-
note-13-pro-plus-5g/specs
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 63 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

c. Redmi Note 13 Pro; https://www.mi.com/global/product/redmi-note-
13-pro/specs
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 64 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

d. Redmi Note 13 – https://www.mi.com/global/product/redmi-note-
13/specs
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 65 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

e. POCO X6 Pro; https://www.mi.com/global/product/poco-x6-
pro/specs
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 66 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

f. POCO X6 Neo – https://www.poco.in/x6-neo-spec
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 67 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

g. POCO X7 – https://www.mi.com/global/product/poco-x7/specs
71. Further, the Defendants through their submissions, have not provided
any information on how their devices conform with the 4G and 5G
standards. In other words, the Defendants have not provided any alternative
technology it uses to support the non-infringement defence. Rule 3(B)(vi) of
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 68 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

the Rules mandates that in case the defendant raises a case of non-
infringement, it must provide in the written statement the technology used in
their product / process in question. In Dolby International AB & Anr.
( supra ) , the Court has considered this factor and emphasised that burden to
prove the use of alternate technology lies with the defendant. The relevant
paragraph of Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ) is reproduced
hereunder:
“80.⁠ ⁠Even though the experts of Lava confirm the fact that Lava's
devices implement the standard, it is stated that the said devices do
not infringe the suit patents. However, Lava's experts failed to
disclose any alternate technology adopted by Lava to implement the
standard. Rule 3(B)(vi) of the Delhi High Court Rules Governing
Patent Suits, 2022 clearly mandates that the implementor has to
disclose the details of the alternate technology adopted by the
implementor to implement the standards. The burden to prove the
alternate technology cannot be shifted by Lava to Dolby. Reference
in this regard may be made to the judgments in Strix v. Maharaja
and Ericsson v. Lava (supra).”
72. The Plaintiffs have tested the Defendants’ devices and, thereafter,
have filed test reports to establish that that the Defendants’ devices
implement the features of the Suit Patents with respect to 4G and 5G
functionality.
73. The learned Counsel for Plaintiffs submitted that throughout
negotiations, it has never been the case of the Defendants that it does not use
the Suit Patents, or that it does not need to sign a license agreement with the
Plaintiffs for the Suit Patents.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 69 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

As per the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants unreasonably low counteroffer dated
Therefore, if the Defendants
have not recognised its use of Suit Patents and its consequent obligation to
make FRAND royalty payments, the Defendants would not have engaged in
negotiations for two years and would not have made the counteroffer dated
74. Since the Defendants have failed to provide information of use of any
alternative technology or failed to explain to this Court that how its devices
conform with the 4G and 5G standards without implementing the Suit
Patents, this Court at this prima facie stage, based on the submissions made
and the documents placed on record by the Plaintiffs, establishes that the
Plaintiffs have been able to prove the infringement.
75. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the grounds
raised by the Plaintiffs for seeking a pro tem relief fail for a simple reason,
that the same demand the Court to make the following assumptions that are
not permissible in law that:
a. the Defendants are unwilling licensees, merely for seeking justified
clarifications for the computational basis of the royalty rates sought
by the Plaintiffs and in the absence of any objective material on
record to substantiate the claim of FRAND compliance by the
Plaintiffs; and
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 70 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

b. the apprehension that the Defendants would divert monies even
though in every SEP litigation instituted against the Defendants in
the past have been amicably resolved without any finding of guilt.
76. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs
are impermissibly seeking to overcome the requirement to evidence the
veracity of its claims, by essentially claiming inter alia that:
a. the Defendants have an obligation to provide security without the
Plaintiffs discharging its burden;
b. the Plaintiffs implying that the Defendants’ need of a license
agreement and payment of FRAND royalties is not even in dispute
during the negotiations stage; and
c. the adjudication of interim injunction application in a complex
SEP infringement matter might take several hearings, leaving
room for the Defendants to divert monies to other third-parties.
77. According to the Defendants, this prayer is not legally tenable, and
there is no substantiated reasoning or concern as raised by the Plaintiffs.
Citing the most recent balance sheet submitted with their Reply, the learned
Counsel for the Defendants stated that their financial position remains
positive, mitigating any apprehension regarding their evasion of prospective
legal obligations before this Court. Additionally, the Defendants’ publicly
available financial statements demonstrate strong operational performance
and a stable asset base.
78. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that grave prejudice
may be caused to the Plaintiffs if the present Application is not allowed as
there is a high probability that the Plaintiffs may not be secured even if a
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 71 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

favourable order is subsequently passed in their favours. It is case of the
Plaintiffs’ that there is also a possibility that fearing an interim injunction,
the Defendants may divert their operations and monies to other sources that
may be traceable by the Plaintiffs and / or may be situated beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court.
79. This Court in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ) held that furnishing pro
tem security is the implementer’s obligation in the negotiation phase itself
and held that in view of tedious judicial proceedings, compared to foreign
courts, pro tem security is more relevant in the Indian context. Therefore, in
order to balance the equities, there is a need to provide pro tem security in
favour of the SEP holders. The Court also held that in the interregnum while
an interim injunction application is being heard and decided, in case the
infringing party continues to sell devices covered by the SEPs in question,
and offering no security to the SEP holder would place the SEP holder as
well as other willing licensees at a disadvantage an provides an unfair
competitive edge to such implementer.
80. It is case of the Plaintiffs that the implementer’s legal obligation to
furnish security arises at the negotiation stage itself. The Plaintiffs relied
upon the decision in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. ( supra ). The
Defendants ought to be ordered to honor this obligation of theirs in
litigation, as they have failed to do so during negotiations as well as
reiterated in recent decisions by this Court in Intex Technologies (India)
Ltd. & Ors. ( supra ) and Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ).
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 72 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

81. Therefore, in view of the above, the Plaintiffs’ have made out prima
facie case of infringement of the Suit Patents and the Defendants being the
implementers have legal obligation to furnish pro tem security.
82. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the implementer
is obligated to furnish security which is commensurate to the FRAND offer
made by the SEP holder. Citing the case of Munich Higher Regional Court,
HMD Global Oy ( supra ) and VoiceAge EVS LLC , ( supra ), the learned
Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Court upheld that an
implementer is only a willing licensee if it provides an adequate security to
the SEP owners.
83. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted while relying upon
the decisions in Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ), Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra ) and Communication Components Antenna Inc. ,
( supra ) that the precarious financial position of the Defendants warrants pro
tem security in order to secure the Plaintiff’s interest.
84. However, as per the Press Release on 09.06.2023, the Enforcement
Directorate has initiated the investigation against Defendant No. 2 for
violation of the provisions under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
The adjudicating authority also seized ₹5551.27 crores of Defendant No. 2.
85. Based on the concept of pro tem as discussed above, it is fair to state
that pro tem security is meant to safeguard the interest of the Plaintiffs
during the pendency of the lis as well as to ensure that the final decree is not
illusory.
86. The Court in Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ), Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra ) and Communication Components Antenna Inc. ,
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 73 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

( supra ) have held that where financial condition of a defendant is unstable,
the Courts ought to direct security deposit, so that the SEP holder is not left
remediless. The Court has held that pro tem security is necessary when: (i)
the defendant has no physical asset(s) in India; (ii) have a shrinking market
presence; or (iii) has a weak financial standing. Based on the above-
mentioned factors, the Court agrees with the submission of the Plaintiffs
that, the financial position of the Defendants is precarious and does not
inspire confidence as:
a. Defendant No. 1 is the parent company incorporated in Cayman
Islands and therefore, does not have any assets in India.
b. Defendant No. 2 is the Indian subsidiary of Defendant No. 1.
c. Defendant No. 3 and 4 are the Chinese arms of Defendant No. 1 and
do not have assets in India.
87. Therefore, considering the said investigation and the report filed by
the Plaintiffs, there is a genuine apprehension that during the proceedings of
the Suit and if a decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and damages are
awarded, the Defendants may not be able to pay the same.
88. Based on the above, the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case
on the validity, essentiality and infringement of the Suit Patents. Further,
while deciding the Application for pro tem , the detailed exploration of
merits is not required. The Division Bench of this Court, in Nokia
Technologies OY ( supra ) emphasised that to pass a pro tem order is a
temporary arrangement ⁠and, therefore, detailed exploration of merits is not
required. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 74 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

“58 Consequently, to balance the equities between the parties, this
Court has the power, if the facts so warrant, to pass a pro-tem order
being a temporary arrangement without a detailed exploration of
merits. This view, according to the Court, promotes a modernized
and fair patent system, encourages ingenuity, creativity and
intellectual activity as well as provides for a conducive environment
for knowledge transfer. Needless to state that the nature of pro-tem
security deposit order as well as interim order will necessarily
depend on the factual matrix of each case.”
89. Further, in Nokia Technologies OY ( supra ), the Division Bench of
this Court differentiated the pro tem security order from interim relief under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC emphasising that in case of pro tem the
threshold of prima facie case is lower compared to interim injunction. The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
“56.⁠ ⁠Additionally, in order to decide an application for interim relief
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. the Court has to examine
various aspects on merits, which would necessarily take time. In the
interregnum. the infringing party would freely sell its devices using
such Standard Essential Patents. If no security is offered during the
interregnum, such party benefits, to the disadvantage of the
Standard Essential Patent holder as well as the other willing
licensees and gets an unfair competitive edge in the market.”
*
“59.⁠ ⁠This Court is father of the opinion that a pro-tem security order
cannot be likened to an injunction order because unlike an
injunction order it does not stop or prevent the manufacturing and
sale of the infringing devices. The intent of a pro-tem security order
is to either entire maintenance of status-quo or to retain the Courts
power and ability to pass appropriate relief at the time of disposal of
the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 or at
the final stage. In the facts of the present case, the pro-tem security
order does not confer any advantage upon Nokia as it only balances
the asymmetric advantage that an implementer has over a Standard
Essential Patent holder.”
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 75 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

90. This contention is also supported by the decisions in Dolby
International AB & Anr. ( supra ) and Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( supra ). The
relevant paragraphs from Dolby International AB & Anr. ( supra ) are
reproduced hereunder:
“39. In my considered view, the expression, used by the Division
Bench in Nokia v. Oppo (supra) in paragraph 81, “ Normally
speaking, a pro-tem deposit should be directed only after a prima
facie finding of essentiality and validity of the suit patents has
been recorded ” has to be reconciled with the observations made in
paragraph 58 that “ Consequently, to balance the equities between
the parties, this Court has the power, if the facts so warrant, to
pass a pro-tem order being a temporary arrangement without a
detailed exploration of merits. ”. Therefore, even though the Court
is required to give a prima facie finding of essentiality and validity
of the suit patents, the level of scrutiny would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of the case. Where the conduct and actions of the
implementor during the negotiations stage indicates no serious
challenge to the essentiality and validity of the suit patents, the
Courts may not get into a detailed exploration of merits. To arrive at
a prima facie finding with regard to the essentiality and validity of
the suit patents the Court can look at the surrounding factors such
as the number of licenses entered into by SEP owners in respect of
the portfolio of SEPs relating to the same technology; enforcement
of the said SEPs before competent Courts; pro tem orders passed by
the courts relation to the said SEPs. Where it is found that a
significant number of competitors and players in the market,
including entities that are in a better bargaining position on account
of their volumes or market share, are paying royalties for such
SEPs, it would be a relevant factor.
*
46. In its e-mail dated 23rd August, 2023, Dolby responded to
various queries raised by Lava and called upon Lava to furnish its
audited statements in respect of sales of Lava’s devices. As
requested by Lava, Dolby once again provided all claim charts for
the asserted USAC (3-Series) patents.”
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 76 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

The relevant paragraphs from Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( supra ) are
reproduced hereunder:
16. Next plank of the argument of the Defendants, strenuously
pressed was that even for passing a pro-tem order, Court must
satisfy itself that all ingredients required for grant of interim
injunction are met by the Plaintiff and this threshold cannot be
lowered. This contention, in my view, is without merit for the
reasons I shall advert to later, but before that a brief prelude or
background to SEPs needs to be recapitulated. As brought out by the
Plaintiff, SEPs are a special class of patents within the broad
framework of Patents law and jurisprudence, which read onto an
accepted industry standard for a technology that has been
standardized for the larger good of the society. A ‘Standard’, simply
put, is a prescribed list of features or technical specifications for a
particular technology and the purpose of the standard is to ensure
that every product manufactured as per the standard has certain
common features so as to ensure compatibility and interoperability
of devices, materials, components etc. that are compliant with the
standardized technology. This reduces the overall cost of compliant
products and implementers who do not invest in R&D have access to
latest and best of technology. This also encourages adequate
exchange of technical know-how and inventions, which is in the best
interest of the consumers, both in terms of cost and quality of the
products. The standards are developed by various SSOs and the role
of the SSO is to coordinate and facilitate a standard setting process
with the involvement of stakeholders like researchers, academic
institutions etc. As a corollary, any product that claims to be
compliant with a standardized technology, must necessarily
implement and use such SEPs to ensure interoperability with other
devices compliant with standards and therefore, a product which
confirms to an industry standard would infringe all SEPs that lead
onto the concerned standard. In order to balance the monopoly
afforded to a patentee with mandatory implementation of its
technology as part of the standard, such patentee makes voluntary
commitment to offer a licence qua its SEPs to a willing implementer
to execute a licence on FRAND terms. This ensures wider access to
technologies developed as a standard and also ensures that
companies who invest in R&D, both time and resources, apart from
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 77 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

considerable effort to invent, are adequately and fairly
compensated.
17. Coming home to the present case, the suit patents relate to
telecommunication technologies UMTS and LTE, referred to as 3G
and 4G technologies in the common parlance. This technology is
stated to be a standardized technology and patents covering various
aspects of this, including the suit patents are claimed to be SEPs by
the Plaintiff. Claims mapping charts have been filed and the
asseveration is that it is impossible to manufacture a device, which
implements or uses these technologies, without necessarily
infringing the suit patents. Allegation is that Defendants are
continuing to infringe the suit patents and are unwilling to execute
license agreements or even enter into negotiations. In Huawei
Technologies Co. Ltd. (supra) and Nokia Technologies Oy (supra) ,
as noted above, it was observed that it is mandatory for an
implementer to make a deposit to secure the interest of SEP
proprietor before it can raise any defence and this position was
upheld by the UK Supreme Court in Unwired Planet International
Ltd (supra) . This position was reaffirmed in the German Court
decisions relating to corresponding European patents in
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Archos Deutschland GmbH [Case No.
7 O 20/16 decided on 26th August, 2016] and Koninklijke Philips
N.V. v. Wiko SAS [Case no. 7 O 44/16 decided on 25th November,
2016] . Position in India seems no different and a number of orders
have been cited by the Plaintiff in this regard. In Xiaomi
Technology (supra) , Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
“11. Since we have indicated to the parties that we would
be working out a pro tem measure and simultaneously
requesting the learned single Judge to decide appellants'
application for vacation of the exparte adinterim injunction,
concerning suppression of material facts, any other issue
relating to the right of the patentee, which would require a
prima facie view to be taken with respect to the data
analysis of the technology used by the appellants vis-a-vis
the technology in which patent rights are claimed by the
respondent, would have to wait hearing at a later stage for
the purpose of deciding the application seeking an interim
measure.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 78 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

12. Thus, our present order would be restricted only to such
devices which the appellants import as are fitted with the
chipset manufactured by Qualcomm and no other chipset.
To said extent i.e. on the terms of the present order as
hereinafter recorded, the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge would be superseded.”
13. We are passing the pro tem order keeping in view the
fact that treating the averments in the plaint to be true, the
adverse effect upon the first respondent would be the
finances which would otherwise flow to the coffers of the
first respondent if ultimately it is found that the appellants is
infringing the patent of the first respondent. The measure of
the infringement would be the amount which the appellants
would then have to pay to the first respondent as per policy
of the first respondent while granting licenses. It is trite that
the measure of damages for infringement of a patent would
be the revenue loss to the patentee which it would have got
by way of royalty while granting the license.
14. Striking a balance between the right of the appellants,
which even as per the plaint, is concededly in business in
India since July, 2014, we dispose of the appeal directing
that as a pro tem measure the appellants would be
permitted to import and sell the devices containing chipsets
sold to it by Qualcomm upon the following terms:
(1) The pro tem measure would be restricted to import
and sale of devices in which Qualcomm chipsets are
used.
(2) By January 5, 2015, ?100 per device imported
would be deposited in the name of the Registrar
General of this Court by the appellants, which would be
kept in a fixed deposit by the Registrar General; term of
the deposit being three months.
(3) Affidavit would be filed by January 5, 2015
disclosing the import of devices in India containing
chipset of Qualcomm pursuant to the present order.
(4) Particulars of invoices of purchase of chipsets from
Qualcomm shall be disclosed in the affidavit.
(5) Imports made in the month of January, 2015 would
likewise be disclosed by way of an affidavit and Rs.
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 79 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

100/- per device deposited in the name of the Registrar
General of this Court by February 03, 2015.”
*
20. Defendants insist that even for grant of pro-tem order, all
ingredients for grant of interim injunction must be looked into i.e.
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. In
my prima facie view, none of the objections raised by the Defendants
in opposition to grant a pro-tem order can be sustained in law. Two
Division Benches of Court have recognized the FRAND protocol
contained in the decision in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (supra) ,
and held that implementers are required to provide pro-tem security
during the stage of negotiations, i.e. even prior to initiation of
litigation. In Intex Technologies (supra) , the Division Bench of this
Court held that an implementer has no right in silence or inaction at
the stage of negotiation. In Xiaomi Technology (supra) , Division
Bench of this Court held that pro-tem precedes ad-interim stage and
does not entail arguments on merits. In Nokia Technologies Oy
(supra ), Division Bench held that pro-tem security order cannot be
likened to an injunction…”
91. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to make the pro tem security
deposit.
QUANTIFICATION OF THE PRO TEM DEPOSIT
92. The first offer of the Plaintiffs was made on
This offer was made
considering both the Suit Patents as well as BlackBerry owned and
licensable SEPs.
93. The Defendants have submitted their device sales in India in a sealed
cover. However, the Plaintiffs have provided arguments / data of the said
sales of the Defendants’ devices in India. Therefore, the most appropriate
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 80 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

option would be to decide the quantum based on the offer and counteroffers
exchanged between the Parties.
94. The second offer of the Plaintiffs vide communication dated
, offered the lumpsum of to the Defendants.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs reduced this lumpsum amount to .
95. The Defendants’ first offer was of for handset
devices made / sold in Defendants
Under the Defendants’
was proposed (withholding tax included). This
counteroffer was made by the Defendants considering both Suit Patents as
well as BlackBerry owned and licensable SEPs.
96. It is noted that there is substantial difference in the first offer of the
Plaintiffs and the second counteroffer of the Defendants. Considering the
decisions in Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( supra ) and Dolby International AB
& Anr . ( supra ), wherein it was emphasized that the defendant ought to
deposit security based on the offer of the plaintiffs, not its counteroffer, the
quantum of pro tem security deposit is determined as 19.12% (Indian Market
Share) of the average / mean of the second lumpsum offer of the Plaintiffs
and the second counteroffer of the Defendants as under:

CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 81 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35

97. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to deposit the total quantum of
pro tem security amount of $28.7 million. As per exchange rate prevailing as
on 30.04.2026 of USD($) to INR(₹) the amount becomes approximately
₹272 crores.
CONCLUSION
98. In light of the above analysis, the present Application is disposed of
with the following directions:
a. The Defendants shall deposit a sum of ₹272 crores with the Registrar
General of this Court within a period of 6 weeks from today. This
amount shall be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit on auto-
renewal mode.
b. Alternatively, the Defendants are at liberty to submit an unconditional
Bank Guarantee in favour of the Registrar General of this Court from
an Indian Bank for the specified sum of ₹272 crores.
c. In case the Defendants fail to deposit the specified amount / Bank
Guarantee as per the abovementioned terms, the Plaintiffs may move
an appropriate application before the Court for seeking an interim
injunction / other suitable relief against to Defendants.
99. It is clarified that this Order neither confers any final finding on
infringement or liability, nor does it mandate acceptance of the Plaintiffs’
licensing rate as binding.
100. The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 30, 2026
KC’ / ‘N’
CS(COMM) 734/2025 Page 82 of 82
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.05.2026
19:38:35