Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

i) That his client Oppo is willing to proceed to an expedited trial with issues being framed in the matter. However, he prays that instead of two witnesses, Oppo would seek for some more witnesses owing to the technicalities involved.
ii) That his client Oppo is agreeable for the trial and cross examination to be conducted by using live transcription.
a) The observations of the ld. Division Bench in paragraph 89 of the decision dated 3rd July, 2023.

b) The conduct of Oppo in the U.K., where Oppo refused to agree for a global FRAND determination by the U.K Court and was held to be an unwilling licensee.

c) The fact that Oppo is not willing to take a specific stand as to whether Oppo would be willing to abide by the FRAND This is a digitally signed order.

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 09/10/2023 at 22:04:05 rate fixed by this Court either on a global basis or even for India.

d) That there is no pro-tem security offered in the case of the implementation patents and in any event, even if an injunction is granted against Oppo, there would be no hardship because Oppo would be free to work around the said implementation patents and use alternative technologies.