Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(9) The whole emphasis is laid by the plaintiff according to law on two important matters. One is that the plaintiff has been a very experienced person in the field and that he had invented a system which was not known to the humanity before and that invention by him is used by the first defendant with the help of Hughes. He would set out in detail his career right from the beginning and the projects in which he had worked and how he came to invent this system. In paragraph 6 at page 18 of the plaint he would give how he came to have the system discovered which reads as under :- "Combined with his past experience and know how including inter alia on Asia Sat and Star Tv, and Cedar wood and the years of living in Asia and Africa, the plaintiff was uniquely placed to review and evaluate Satellite based Tele-communications Systems. In this process, the plaintiff found that there were three basic approaches to 767 the problem of global satellite to transceiver communication each of which had its advantages and disadvantages: (a) By utilisation of the Low-Earth-Orbiting Satellite System (LEO) (b) By utilisation of Medium-Earth-Orbiting Satellite Systems (MEO). (e) By utilisation of Geo-Stationary-Earth-Orbiting Systems (GEO). The plaintiff concluded that Geostationary Satellite based Telecommunications Systems were in many ways the most cost effective but had been ruled out due to certain technical problems related inter alia to service area and spectrum allocation, satellite distance and Time Delay (Echo) and Satellite Distance and the size of then current and planned transceivers on Earth (for Geo Systems) and the historical evolution of this approach. The plaintiff then used his experience and know how and did some original thinking, and, also identified various available technologies and recombined and reconfigured them in a new design which would deal with the said problems above in a satisfactory manner. The plaintiff's perception of market potential and opportunity was also then at variance with others. The plaintiff thus generated the following unique solutions: (i) The plaintiff gave his system an unique name Satellite Mobile Personal Communications ("SMPC") System; (ii) and identified 3 unique satellite "FOOTPRINTS" System; (iii) combined achieve coverage of nearly 70% of the earth's population at; (iv) less than 20% of the projected cost of the Iridium Project and as much as (v) two years before any competitor; (vi) Time delays of 300 msec are in fact acceptable for this service; (vii) The elimination of Double-hop delays of more than 600 msec are accomplishable by utilisation of On Board Switching systems for "In system" handset to handset calls; (viii) The utilization of higher power L-Band traveling Wave Tubes or the division of the Footprint into smaller spot beams would increase the radiated power on the ground; (ix) Increase in the size of the deployable parabolic antenna to greater than 5 meters; and (x) Combing the higher powered satellite with higher power L-Band traveling Wave Tubes; or (xi) the utilization of an amalgamation of smaller spot beams in conjunction with a greater than 5 meter deployable parabolic antenna; (xii) would enable the system to operate with small cellular type handsets; (xiii) Created an unique parallel construction program in order to maximize the opportunity of the earliest possible service commencement date; and 768 (xiv) minimize the historical risk of launch failure as a delay of service start; (xv) The Interconnection between the 3 Systems enables this to be extended to nearly 70% of the earth's population at a cost which contains no premium for distance of topography between to Smpc users on the system; (xvi) The plaintiff also configured a small light weight consumer transcribing device which is essentially a; (xvii) Gsm cellular device with a; (xviii) L-Band "front end" and which is flexible; (xix) multi-functional; and (xx) can be either "mobile" or "fixed" (xxi) yet accomplishes the connectivity for voice, data or fax and is not presently provided in this form by any one."

(11) The fulcrum of the plaintiff's case is his own affidavit filed as Annexure A. He would state that his meeting with Mr. Subhash Chandra, first defendant and the 7th defendant Mr. Stephen Moss were held in strict privacy due to confidentiality of his information. He would state that the business relationship did not proceed along the lines originally agreed to between the first defendant and himself. Here, I have to note that the plaintiff would not state what was originally agreed to between the parties. According to him, his experience in the field enabled him to evolve a system in which he had a proprietary right. He posed himself four problems. (1) Service Area and Spectrum Allocation; (2) Satellite Distance and Time Delay; (3) Satellite Distance and Power; (4) The Process of Solution. According to the plaintiff. Geostationary Satellite would mean the Satellite sent into the orbit to a distance of about 36,000 Kms from earth and the Satellite would have the same velocity or the speed of the earth rotating itself. In other words, the Satellite sent into the orbit would be traveling in the same speed as the earth and the effect of it would be that Satellite could be spotted in the same place and that is called Geostationary. The system evolved would make the communication very quick and from Satellite it will straight away reach the hand set without any intermediary stations. In the affidavit the plaintiff would offer solutions and he would state at page 72 of Part I of the file as under :- "In response to this aspect I evolved a unique program of parallel satellite 770 construction whereby two satellites would be constructed at the same time and three different Footprint configurations constructed so as to enable the first or second spacecraft to be employed over either of two markets. (13) Created a unique parallel construction program in order to maximize the opportunity of the earliest possible service commencement date and (14) minimize the historical risk of launch failure as a delay of service start, by construction of 3 antenna "feed horn" configurations. I evolved my own concept of Consumer utilization and product functionality for the system based upon my experience as described in above. The core proposition of the Smpc System rests upon a unique matrix evolved by me of product functionality, consumer need and systems cost as follows: (a) Connectivity-The system provides for connectivity across a large continental land mass. The interconnection between the 3 System enables this to be extended to nearly 70% of the earth's population at a (15) cost which contains no premium for distance or topography between to Smpc users on the system. (b) I also configured a small light weight consumer transcribing device which is essentially a (17) Gsm cellular device with a (18) L-Band "front end" and which is flexible. (19) multi-functional and (20) can be either "mobile" or "fixed" (21) yet accomplishes the connectivity for voice data or fax and is not presently provided in this form by anyone. (16) Thus, I sum up my unique solutions as set out below : (i) I gave my system an unique name Satellite Mobile Personal Communications System ("SMPC"); (ii) 3 unique satellite "FOOTPRINT'S" which when; (iii) combined achieve coverage of nearly 70% of the earth's population at; (iv) less than 20% of the projected cost of the Iridium Project and as much as; (v) two years before any competitor; (vi) Time delays of 300 msec are in fact acceptable for this service; (vii) The elimination of Double-hop delays of more than 600 msec are accomplishable by utilization of On Board Switching systems for "In system" handset to handset calls; (viii) The utilization of higher power L-Band traveling Wave Tubes or the division of the Footprint into smaller spot beams would increase the radiated power on the ground; (ix) Increase in the size of the deployable parabolic antenna to greater than 5 meters; and (x) Combing the higher powered satellite with higher power L-Band traveling Wave Tubes; or (xi) the utilization of an amalgamation of smaller spot beams in conjunction with a greater than 5 meter deployable parabolic antenna; 771 (xii) would enable the system to operate with small cellular type handsets; (xiii) Created an unique parallel construction program in order to maximize the opportunity of the earliest possible service commencement date; and (xiv) minimize the historical risk of launch failure as a delay of service start; (xv) The interconnection between the 3 Systems enables this to be extended to nearly 70% of the earth's population at a cost which contains no premium for distance of topography between to Smpc users on the system; (xvi) I also Configured, as a component of the total system, a small light weight consumer transcribing device which is essentially a; (xvii) Gsm cellular device with a; (xviii) L-Band "front end" and which is flexible; (xix) multi-functional and (xx) can be either "mobile" or "fixed" (xxi) yet accomplishes the connectivity for voice, data or fax and is not presently provided in this form by any one."

(22) The first defendant has categorically denied the assertion by the plaintiff that any private meeting on the evening of February 1994 in London in the residential property, belonging to the first defendant, that the plaintiff had been induced to part with his developmental ideas and information on the project and he was also induced to part with his intellectual property rights, on his ideas on the structuring, implementation and the execution of the Smpc system. The first defendant has also denied the meeting at Heathrow Airport, London in which the defendant made it clear that he was going to attempt the implementation of the plaintiff's Smpc system for India. These are all matters I may note at this stage itself can be decided only on oral evidence. In paragraph 30 of the written statement, the first defendant has also referred to the demand for US$ 3,650,000 towards payment of license fee by the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the demand was made in a fax received by him on 18th October, 1994 while the letter is dated 31.3.94. The first defendant has also stated that "It is also no secret that the satellite 778 manufacturers such as Hughes, Aerospace and Martin Marietta are willing to provide necessary technology and know-how on a turn key basis." I need not refer to the other averments in the written statement while I am dealing with the application for injunction as I feel they are not necessary at this moment. The averments in the reply to the application for injunction are more or less on the same terms in the written statement and it will be wholly burdening this judgment if I extract those averments also. The first defendant has secured an affidavit from Mr. Paramjit Singh Bains, stated to be an expert in the field. As stated above, the affidavit was filed in this Court on 6.7.95. Mr. Bains is stated to be a resident of 8326 Regis Way, Los Angeles, California 90045, Usa and he is the General Manager for all Commercial Programs at Hughes Space and Communications Company, a business unit of Hughes Aircraft Company, located at California. U.S.A. According to him, he has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in December 1970, he received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles in May 1973. He joined Hughes in August 1973. He is now aged 48 years. He has been working with Hughes for nearly 22 years. Prima facie, I feel that he is a competent person to speak about the system, now claimed by the plaintiff. About the footprint in page 8 of his affidavit, what he says is relevant and it is as under:- "The plaintiff claims that he has identified 3 unique satellite 'footprints'. In this regard I state that all satellites have 'footprints' and the identification of an appropriate 'footprint' is central to any business plan. A 'footprint' is nothing but the area of Earth covered by any satellite. Learned Judge is no doubt aware that in India, Star Tv is relayed by Asiasati, Cnn from Apstar I, and Doordarshan Channel 2 from Inset 2B. All these satellites have overlapping footprints. This is the equivalent of stating that the plaintiff has decided to locate his shop in Connaught Place, New Delhi as opposed to say South Extension, New Delhi because he believes that the Connaught Place location better suits the needs of his client. While this may be the basis of a business plan or a financial model, there can be no Intellectual Property Rights in the location of a shop or in the identification of a 'footprint'. Many satellites may use the same or very similar 'footprints'. He would explain the system in the following terms :- "In any event, I state that satellite coverage has been studied in great depth well before the first communication satellite was sent up in orbit in 1963. There is a huge wealth of published material which describe the available possibilities and the technological parameters in this regard. By way only of illustration, the following materials consider the precise claim of the plaintiff: (a) HK. Aghvami etal - "Land Mobile Satellites Using the Highly Elliptic Orbits - The Uk T-SAT Mobile Payload," 4th International Conference on Satellite Systems for Mobile Communications and Naviation. 17-19 October 1988 - which states that 3 satellites in the geostationary orbit provide virtually global coverage with latitudes + or-75 degree latitudes. (b) J. Draim, "Three and Four Satellite continuous Coverage Constellations," J. Guidance, vol. 8, No. 6, November - December 1985 - which 779 states that continues coverage can be provided to most of the world's populated land masses with 3 satellites. (e) J. Draim, "Satellite Continuous Coverage Constellations." U.S. Patent No. 4,809,935 (issued March 7, 1989) - which shows that 3 satellites could cover most of the earth's land masses and 4 satellites would provide continuous global coverage. (d) J. Benedictoet et al.. "MAGSS-14: A Medium-Altitude Global Mobile Satellite System for Personal Communications at L-band". Esa Journal. Vol. 16,117-133,1992- which describes a variety of solutions and satellite positions which are capable of providing continuous global coverage. (e) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, published October 28, 1992 - which discloses many available option for positioning satellites which would be capable of providing continuous global coverage." He would state Iridium is a system utilizing satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). He also explains the cost aspect and that is no invention of anything. The claim of the plaintiff that time delays of 300 msec are in fact acceptable for the service, (mille seconds). About this aspect, he says that is discussed in publication by M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System". Epa, published in October 28, 1992. About the claim of the plaintiff that On-Board Switching would reduce the problem of double hop delays, he would explain the position thus :- "I state that this is obvious as what is contemplated is that switching is not done on the ground. In layman's terms, this may be explained as follows. All telephonic communications must route through a telephone exchange which does the physical work of connecting two people. The signal therefore travels from sender to satellite to exchange ('hop I') to satellite to receiver ('hop II') in one bit of conversation. It then goes in the other direction by the same process when the call receiver speaks. This is a double hop each way. It follows that one hop each way can be eliminated if the connectivity function normally provided by a telephone exchange can be performed in the satellite itself. This connectivity function an be provided in the satellite using digital electronics. The problem is twofold. The amount of digital electronics in the past have been much too large and heavy to be carried in satellites. Considerable work has been done in miniaturizing digital electronics in recent years. This is a field of high technology and the plaintiff does not claim that he is an inventor of sub-miniaturized digital electronics." He asserts that the idea of On-Board Switching is not a new one and in 1985 Nasa (USA) the Organisation which put man on the moon designed a satellite called 'SATS' which employed on board switching and this satellite was placed in orbit in 1993.

(23) The claim of the plaintiff about the utilising of higher power L-Band traveling Wave Tubes are the division of the footprint into smaller spot beams would increase the radiator power on the ground. Mr. Bains would state that the plaintiff has no detailed knowledge of mobile communication. He would 780 characterise this as a mere idea but not a very good one. About use of multiple spot, Mr. Bains would state that already the issue had been discussed in the following works:- (a) J. Benedictoetet al.."MAGSS-14: A Medium-Altitude Global Mobile Satellite System for Personal Communications at L-Band." Esa Journal, Vol. 16, 117-133, 1992. (b) A. Mallinckrodt, "Integrated Cellular Communications System," U.S. Patent 5,073,900 (issued December 17, 1991). (e) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, published October 28,1992." About the antenna design, the deponent in the affidavit would state this is again subject matter of discussion earlier in the following works:- "D. Sward, "Mobile Satellite Service for Canada, "Proc. of the Mobile Satellite Conference, May 3-5,1988. (b) C. Agnew et al., "The Amsc Mobile Satellite System,". (e) M. Zuliani et al., "MSAT A New Dimension in Satellite Communications," 37 Cong. of the International Astron. Fed. October 4-11, 1988. (d) J. Benedictoet et al., "MAGSS-14: A Medium-Altitude Global Mobile Satellite System for Personal Communications at L-Band" Esa Journal, Vol. 16,117-133,1992." Mr. Bains also referred to the two works to demolish the claim of the plaintiff, which are as under:- "(a) A. Mallinckrodt, "Integrated Cellular Communications, "U.S. Patent 5,073,900 (issued December 17, 1991). (b) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, Published October 28,1992." He asserts the whole industry has been taking about satellite to handsets communication for the last 10 years. Considerable work has been done in this field by many persons and following are the works in the field :- "(a) R. Rusch et al., "Odyssey. A Constellation for Personal Communications," 14th Aiaa International Comm. Satellite Systems Conference & Exhibit March 22-26, Aiaa 1992. (b) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, Published October 28,1992. (e) J. Benedictoet et al., "MAGSS-14: A Medium-Altitude Global Mobile Satellite System for Personal Communications at L-band" Esa Journal, Vol. 16,117-133,1992." About the parallel construction programs, it is stated that the following satellite construction programs have adopted parallel construction programs :- "(a) R. Rusch et al., "Odyssey. A Constellation for Personal Communications," 14th Aiaa International Comm. Satellite Systems Conference & Exhibit March 22-26, Aiaa 1992. 781 (b) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, Published October 28,1992. (e) J. Benedictoet et al., "MAGSS-14: A Medium-Altitude Global Mobile Satellite System for Personal Communications at L-band" Esa Journal, Vol. 16,117-133,1992." About the claim of the plaintiff relating technology in voice, data or fax communication which is not at present provided in this form by anyone. Mr. Bains would state that plaintiff himself has not provided any such system and this is not the same as saying that industry is not moving in that direction. According to him, the following programs are currently in advance state of designing and construction for such systems:- "(a) Inmarsat (b) Iridium (e) AMSC" In any event, according to Mr. Bains the following works would show that everybody knows about it or otherwise it is in public domain :- "(a) C. Agnw et al., "The Amsc Mobile Satellite System." (b) M. Horstein, "Cellular Telephone Satellite System," Epa, Published October 28,1992. (e) R. Rusch et al., "Odyssey. A Constellation for Personal Communications," 14th Aiaa International Comm. Satellite Systems Conference & Exhibit March 22-26, Aiaa 1992. (d) S. Shindo, "A Multi-Beam Mobile Satellite Communications System in Japan." Satellite Integrated Comm. Networks, 1988. (e) S. Shindo et al. "NTT's Program of Experimental Mobile Satellite System (EMSS) Using Engineering Test Satellite-V (ETS-V)," Review of the Electrical Communications Laboratories, vol. 36, No. 3, 1988." Mr. Bains has concluded in the following terms:- "It is my considered opinion that a composite reading of the attributes of the plaintiff's alleged Smpc system reveals a certain familiarity with the broad features that any satellite based mobile communication system would have but the material disclosed fails to address itself to a variety of technological issues that require solution before such a system can be put into operation. Each of the solutions is proprietary to these players but the plaintiff has not disclosed any such solutions. It is my considered opinion that the following organizations are in all probability in a position to launch a satellite based communications system: (a) Lockheed Martin (b) Hughes (e) Isro (d) Matra Marconi 782 (e) Loral Space Systems In fact Hughes under contract with Amsc (signed December 1990) has successfully launched a mobile communication systems satellite under the program name American Mobile Satellite Communication which is success- fully operating. Based on the data provided in the suit it is my considered opinion that the plaintiff is not one among them. I state by way of ample precaution that the foregoing opinion is based purely on the claim of the ownership of proprietary 'technology' and Intellectual Property by the plaintiff and I have neither considered nor believe myself to be an expert on any other question arising in the suit including any question of contractual liability." The first defendant has also secured an affidavit from Mr. David Alan Green Wood resident of United Kingdom. He says he has read the affidavit of Mr. Roger dark dated 17.7.95 filed in support of the plaintiff and he has also read the rejoinder of the plaintiff. About his experience he would state in the following terms :- " I was employed by Marconi Space Systems in Portsmouth, England (later Matra Marconi Space Systems after their joint venture with Matra in 1990) from June 1983 to December 1994 as a specialist in the design of telecommunications satellites for mobile applications such as are the subject of this plaint. I became Division Engineering Manager of the Communications Payload Division in May 1989, and Chief Engineer (Payloads) as well as Division Manager of the Payload Engineering Division in March 1993. In these several capacities as lead engineer for communications satellite payload design I was responsible for all of the engineering and all of the engineers working on communications satellite payload system and hardware design in the Marconi Space Systems company. This group of engineers under my direct responsibility numbered in size from 70 to 250 engineers through this period. The engineers under my direct responsibility carried out all of the design engineering of all of the communications satellite payload projects at Matra Marconi Space Systems up to my leaving the company in December 1994. These projects include communications payload designs for Military applications in the X Band such as Skynet 4, Nato 4, and Skynet 5; communications payload designs for Fixed Service and Television applications in the C and the Ku Bands such as Eutelsat 11; Intelsat Fos, Koreasat and Europesat; as well as communications payload designs for Mobile Service applications such as Aramis, Inmarsat 3 and Inmarsat P21 in the mobile bands. Specifically of relevance in these proceedings engineers under my direct leadership carried out Payload designs for :- -The European Mobile Service payload between 1988 and 1991. -The Esa Digital Beam former Proposal, and European/Africa continental coverage payload between November 1992 and March 1993. -The Inmarsat Transition System payload proposal between September 1992 and April 1993. 783 -The Inmarsat P21 Mobile net generation Gso system and Meo system designs between February 1992 and December 1993 (in two phases)." He states in paragraph 7H his association with first defendant and how he contacted Martin Marietta and Hughes. Paragraph 7H is as follows :- " I joined Asc from Matra Marconi in December 1994 as Chief Engineer bringing my experience and understanding of Mobile satellite system with me; specifically my experience in the design of the Inmarsat Gso Transition System and also my experience in the designs of the Inmarsat Gso P21 systems. It is this background and experience which I used in December 1994 to generate an Rfp (Request for Proposal) to be sent to Martin Marietta and Hughes, and which Si have used during 1995 to help successfully bring Hughes into contract for a Turnkey system procurement. Since joining Asc in December 1994 (and prior to reading all of the historical documents at Asc during recent weeks for the purposes of understanding the Plaint in these proceedings) I have not come across any documents or correspondence existing at Asc which indicate that the documents relied upon in the plaint were submitted to Asc, or any documents before December 1994 which have bearing on the technology and system design of this mobile satellite system. The work that I have carried out since joining Asc has been based entirely on my own background and experience." In paragraph 9-C, he would state about the Turnkey System as under:- "The system design carried out by Hughes for Asc is a full turnkey system design in which Hughes retain and own all the intellectual property rights. The design uses 245 spot beams and so is well able to provide communications to a small handheld mobile terminal. The plaintiff alleged Smpc system which is merely a business plan, with only 15 spot beams as proposed by the plaintiff (apart from being entirely inadequate) makes me believe that the plaintiff has no understanding of the actual technology requirements for a system to communicate to small handheld terminals." He deals with the allegations in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff and a reading of this affidavit gives a general idea to a layman like me that the claim made by the plaintiff is not that much an original system designed by the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff would be able to make all these points in trial is a different matter but as things stand at present, nothing was said on behalf of the plaintiff which could persuade me to reject the affidavit by Mr. Green Wood though he is employed under the first defendant. His qualification and experience in the field cannot be doubted. His assurance, prima fade, appear to me to be full of force. I cannot reject the affidavit of Mr. Green Wood as being blindly in support of the first defendant, as contended for by the plaintiff. There is difference between the affidavit of Mr. Roger Clerk on the one hand and the affidavit of Mr. Bains and Mr. Green Wood on the other hand. I have attempted to make a brief analysis of what they have stated in their respective affidavits.