InterDigital vs Xiaomi: An interesting case on Confidentiality Club in Standard Essential Patents Litigation

Recently, the Delhi High Court decided on a patent infringement suit filed by Interdigital Technology Corporation (“InterDigital”), a US-based mobile and video Research & Development company, against Xiaomi Corporation (“Xiaomi”), a China-based internet and telecommunication company. An interesting aspect that was put forth for the consideration of the single judge Bench of the Delhi High Court is on the proposal from InterDigital for setting up of a
xiomi“Confidentiality Club” wherein, during ongoing litigation and negotiation of a dispute, certain documents and information of confidential nature pertaining to the technology and its licensing terms would only be made available to a ‘tiered’ group of persons at the exclusion of others. While the Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar rejected the proposal, it did suggest an alternative approach. The entire development, in this case, is worth a look since it impacts litigation and dispute resolution of standard essential patents in India, a market that has grown in importance in the last few years.

Brief facts of the case: InterDigital sued Xiaomi alleging infringement of InterDigital’s Indian Patents, primarily the following:

  • Patent No 262910 (Appl No 8446/DELNP/2007), titled: A METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING DATA OVER AN ENHANCED DEDICATED CHANNEL(E-DCH), A WIRELESS TRANSMIT/RECEIVE UNIT AND A BASE STATION THEREOF
  • Patent No 295912 (Appl No 1233/DELNP/2009), titled: DYNAMIC RESOURCE ALLOCATION, SCHEDULING AND SIGNALING FOR VARIABLE DATA RATE SERVICE IN LTE
  • Patent No 298719 (Appl No 7010/DELNP/2009), titled: FEEDBACK SIGNALING ERROR DETECTION AND CHECKING IN MIMO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
  • Patent No 313036 (Appl No 6660/DELNP/2008), titled: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR A WIRELESS TRANSMISSION/ RECEIPT
  • Patent No 320182 (Appl No: 4977/DELNP/2009), titled: IMPLICIT DRX CYCLE LENGTH ADJUSTMENT CONTROL IN LTE _ACTIVE MODE

alleged that Xiaomi has been using the above-mentioned technology contained in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) without obtaining the license and hence sought three broad reliefs from the High Court

  1. A permanent injunction against Xiaomi from manufacturing, selling, assembling, distributing, advertising, exporting, importing, or using, in their devices, technology which infringes the Standard Essential Patents.
  2. A direction that Xiaomi is to take a license from InterDigital for usage of its Standard Essential Patents on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms.
  3. Set up a Confidentiality Club as per a new ‘tiered’ format suggested by InterDigital in accordance with Rule 17 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rule, 2018

While the initial relief (first two mentioned above) sought by InterDigital is an interesting subject-matter in itself dealing with the anti-suit injunction and anti-anti-suit injunctions, this article will limit itself to discuss the other interesting aspect of setting up Confidentiality Club.

Confidentiality Club: Indian courts and laws recognize the concept of Confidentiality Club, for instance, Rule 17 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rule, 2018 provides for setting up of Confidentiality Club as under:

Confidentiality Club – When parties to a commercial suit wish to rely on documents/information that is commercially or otherwise confidential in nature, the Court may constitute a Confidentiality Club so as to allow limited access to such documents/information. In doing so, the Court may set up a structure/protocol, for the establishment and functioning of such Club, as it may deem appropriate. An illustrative structure/protocol of the Confidentiality Club is provided in Annexure F. The Court may appropriately mold the structure/protocol of the Club, based upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”

discussed (https://spicyip.com/2020/12/seps-and-confidentiality-clubs-protecting-fair-play-from-excessive-secrecy.html) the Delhi High Court’s decision on the constitution of a Confidentiality Club for sharing confidential documents in InterDigital v. Xiaomi. InterDigital had proposed that the club constituted to assess whether the licensing terms being offered by InterDigital were on FRAND basis have two tiers: an “outer tier” where the material would be accessible to the advocates for both sides, experts appointed by them, as well as representatives of both parties, and an “inner tier” which would receive documents accessible to all of the above except the parties’ representatives. InterDigital argued that this model would preserve confidential commercial information and it has been accepted by courts all over the world in SEP infringement litigations. Further, as matters are highly technical anyway, the parties’ decisions would be in sync with those of the experts. The court rejected this on two grounds – fair play, which requires each party to be aware of the case of the other party that it is supposed to counter; and the nature of the lawyer-client relationship which mandates that the lawyer act on the instructions of the client and not “substitute their judgment for that of the client.” Nikhil comments that this decision is well-reasoned and strikes a balance between the interests of the various stakeholders, while also keeping in mind transparency from a public interest perspective.

Author: Arindam Purkayastha – Patent Attorney at IIPRD. Email: arindam@iiprd.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two + nineteen =

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010