Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

57. In the present case, nearly two years have lapsed since the institution of the suit and not a „single farthing‟ has been paid by Oppo.

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. A PRO-TEM SECURITY ORDER CANNOT BE LIKENED TO AN INJUNCTION

59. This Court is further 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 ensure 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. This Court in Intex vs. Ericsson (supra) has held as under:-

80. The contention of Oppo, that most of the cases cited by Nokia where the Courts have passed pro-tem orders directing interim deposits to be made were consent orders and thus not applicable, is untenable in law. If Oppo seeks to contend that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to pass such pro-tem orders in the absence of any adjudication on merits of the case, it cannot in the same breath go on to contend that such orders can be passed with consent of the parties. Consent of the parties cannot be held to confer jurisdiction on the Courts to pass orders which it could not have done otherwise. If passing of pro-tem orders were beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts the same could not have been passed merely because the parties consented to it.

THERE IS OBJECTIVE MATERIAL TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF PRO-TEM SECURITY

91. In the present case, in view of the 2018 Agreement and Oppo‟s willingness to renew the licence agreement and multiple counter-offers extended by it, there is objective material on record to determine the quantum of pro-tem security. In any event, the pro-tem arrangement asked for by Nokia, in the alternative, is for deposit of security amount with this Court of an amount which was actually being paid by Oppo under the 2018 Agreement executed between the parties inter se so that in the event the matter is decided in favour of the plaintiff, the Court has the ability to grant the relief.