Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 01:33:32 can be exercised even on the first date of hearing. In Nokia Technologies Oy (supra), the Division Bench held that to balance equities, Court can pass a pro-tem order and that this power also arises from the provision of Section 151 CPC. It is fallacious for the Defendants to contend that relief of pro-tem cannot be granted unless ingredients for grant of interim injunction are satisfied. In Xiaomi Technology (supra), the Division Bench brought forth a clear distinction between an interim and a pro-tem order and laid down the principle of the need to secure a patentee who bears the risk of litigation. The Court also held that pro-tem order ought to be passed taking the averments raised in the plaint to be true without determining a prima facie case, such that Plaintiff/patentee is not left remediless against the Defendant, if eventually a decree is passed in its favour. While passing the said order, the Division Bench was conscious of the fact that Defendant was pleading non-infringement and exhaustion, which issues were yet to be decided at the interim stage since the interim injunction application was pending. If the learned Single Judge had wrongly granted the pro-tem order, the Division Bench would have set the same aside and in fact, despite an allegation of suppression against the Plaintiff, the Division Bench did not set aside the impugned order and directed the expediting the trial. Even as recently as 2020, this Court has granted pro-tem orders in favour of the Plaintiff in suits against Vivo and Xiaomi. [Ref. Koninklijke Philips N.V v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. & Ors., CS (COMM) 383/2020 and Koninklijke Philips N.V v. Xiaomi Inc. & Ors., CS (COMM) 502/2020].

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/12/2023 at 01:33:32 where directions were passed to put in place a pro-tem arrangement, there were no separate applications specifically seeking the relief of pro-tem by the respective Plaintiffs. In paragraph 116 of the judgment in Intex Technologies (supra) the Division Bench has observed that the Patents Rule, 2022 specifically empower this Court to pass deposit orders even on the first date of hearing. From a reading of the several pro-tem orders or the Patents Rule, 2022, this Court has not been able to discern that a pro-tem arrangement will mandate filing of a separate application seeking the said relief, as a pre-condition and this argument of the Defendants is thus without merit.

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. Relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are as follows:-

25. In view of the several orders passed by this Court as well as the recent judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Nokia Technologies Oy (supra) and Intex Technologies (supra), this Court is empowered to pass a pro-tem deposit order without delving into the four- fold test required to be met at the time of grant of interim injunction. Considering the host of factors mentioned above, Court is of the view that prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for a pro-tem measure. In Xiaomi Technology (supra). Division Bench of this Court had directed a pro-tem deposit at Rs.100 per device. Similar orders of pro-tem arrangement have been passed in several cases, referred to and relied on by This is a digitally signed order.