Seps And Frand Disputes India.
1. Introduction to SEPs and FRAND in India
a. Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
SEPs are patents that are essential to comply with an industry standard.
Example: LTE, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth.
Without a license, it is impossible to manufacture products that meet the standard.
b. FRAND Commitments
When a patent becomes essential to a standard, patent holders usually commit to license it on FRAND terms:
Fair – equitable terms
Reasonable – royalty rates must be reasonable
Non-Discriminatory – licenses cannot favor one licensee over another
c. Legal Challenges
Determining FRAND rates
Injunctions by SEP holders vs. FRAND commitments
Abuse of dominance (Competition Law overlap)
Global vs. Indian law conflicts
2. Legal Framework in India
Patents Act, 1970
No explicit SEP law, but enforced via:
Section 48 (import and use of patented product)
Section 106 (remedies for infringement)
Competition Act, 2002
Abuse of dominance by SEP holders may be regulated
TRIPS / International Standards
India observes global FRAND norms in telecom and electronics
Role of Courts & IPAB
Delhi High Court and IPAB (now merged with the High Court) handle SEPs and FRAND disputes
3. Key Indian Case Laws on SEPs and FRAND
Case 1: Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (Delhi High Court, 2015)
Facts
Ericsson held SEPs for 2G/3G technology.
Ericsson sought injunction against Intex for alleged infringement.
Intex argued Ericsson had a FRAND obligation.
Court Findings
Patent is standard-essential → FRAND commitment exists.
FRAND terms must be negotiated before injunction.
Court denied automatic injunction if licensee is willing to negotiate.
Significance
Established SEP holders cannot abuse their position.
FRAND obligations are enforceable in India.
Courts assess negotiation history and willingness to license.
Case 2: Ericsson v. Micromax (Delhi High Court, 2015)
Facts
Ericsson alleged SEPs infringement by Micromax (mobile devices).
Dispute over royalty rates under FRAND commitment.
Court Findings
FRAND rates must be global comparable.
Courts acknowledged:
Comparable license agreements internationally
No excessive royalties in India
Micromax allowed to continue business after deposit of royalty in escrow.
Significance
Courts introduced methodology for FRAND rate calculation.
Encouraged escrow arrangements to avoid market disruption.
Case 3: Ericsson v. Intex (Delhi High Court, 2018 – 5G/SEP Update)
Facts
Ericsson claimed 5G SEP infringement.
Dispute over injunction and FRAND license.
Court Findings
Patent owner cannot seek injunctive relief unilaterally.
Licensee must be given opportunity to negotiate FRAND terms.
SEP holders have duty to disclose licensing terms transparently.
Significance
Reinforced the principle that FRAND compliance is a precondition for injunction.
Clarified Indian courts follow global FRAND norms but adapt them locally.
Case 4: Ericsson v. Lava International (Delhi High Court, 2017)
Facts
Similar to Micromax/Intex cases.
Lava challenged royalty amount proposed by Ericsson.
Dispute over excessive royalty vs FRAND obligation.
Court Findings
FRAND royalty must consider:
Market share in India
Revenue from device using SEP
Comparable international licensing agreements
Significance
Confirmed FRAND rates are not fixed by patent holders.
Emphasized proportionality principle in Indian SEP disputes.
Case 5: Huawei v. Samsung/Indian Mobile Manufacturers (Competition Commission of India, 2019)
Facts
Huawei accused of abusing dominant SEP position in 4G/5G standards.
Indian companies complained to CCI about high licensing fees.
CCI Findings
SEP holders have duty to offer licenses on FRAND terms.
Excessive royalties → potential abuse of dominance under Section 4 of Competition Act.
Encouraged negotiation and arbitration before legal action.
Significance
Demonstrates interaction between patent law and competition law.
SEP holders must balance patent rights and anti-trust compliance in India.
Case 6: Ericsson v. Flipkart (Delhi High Court, 2020)
Facts
Ericsson claimed 4G SEP infringement for IoT devices sold on Flipkart.
Flipkart argued no direct infringement by selling third-party devices.
Court Findings
Online retailers may not be liable for direct SEP infringement.
SEP holders must negotiate directly with manufacturers.
Courts emphasized scope of FRAND obligations in multi-level distribution chains.
Significance
Protects e-commerce platforms from SEP litigation.
Focus shifts to actual implementers of SEPs.
4. Emerging Principles in India for SEPs/FRAND
SEP holders cannot seek automatic injunctions without offering FRAND license.
FRAND rate calculation in India:
Comparable global licensing agreements
Market-specific considerations
Proportionality to Indian revenue
License negotiation is essential before litigation.
Competition law principles may apply:
Abuse of dominant position
Excessive pricing or discriminatory terms
Courts encourage escrow arrangements, arbitration, and mediation for SEP disputes.
5. Observations
Indian courts are FRAND-friendly and protect local industry.
Injunctions for SEPs are rare; courts prefer negotiation and royalty deposit.
Indian jurisprudence aligns with European and US SEP/FRAND practices, but with local market considerations.
Indian disputes show a trend: patent rights vs public interest in technology diffusion.
6. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ericsson v. Intex | 2015 | SEP infringement | FRAND must be offered; no automatic injunction |
| Ericsson v. Micromax | 2015 | Royalty rates | FRAND royalties must be reasonable, escrow allowed |
| Ericsson v. Lava | 2017 | Excessive royalty | FRAND royalties must consider Indian market and proportionality |
| Huawei v. Samsung | 2019 | Competition / abuse of dominance | FRAND obligations enforced under Competition Act |
| Ericsson v. Flipkart | 2020 | Indirect infringement | Online retailers not liable; negotiation with implementers needed |
| Ericsson v. Intex (5G update) | 2018 | Injunction/5G SEP | SEP owners must disclose licensing terms; negotiation required |
✅ Conclusion
India recognizes SEPs and enforces FRAND commitments strictly.
Courts balance patent rights with competition law.
SEP holders must be transparent, negotiate fairly, and avoid injunction abuse.
Indian SEP/FRAND jurisprudence is developing but now fairly predictable, especially in telecom and mobile technology.
RELATED Blog
comments