Author name: Ambika Aggarwal

At 100 pages, the pro tem security deposit order issued by the Delhi High Court in favour of InterDigital is the longest of the court’s SEP ad-interim orders, and offers a lot to unpack. To its credit, the order presents an overall balanced opinion, a clarity in delineation of the ad-interim stage from a future interim injunction and a steady point of view on the persuasive value of foreign decisions. This case changes some big rules of the pro tem […]

DVDs are long gone from our markets, yet their SEPs continue to be on pause, play, rewind! A momentous decision has been delivered by the Delhi High Court today – a big, refreshing and important update for the developing standard essential patent (SEP) jurisprudence. The division bench decision comes from Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla and is a turning point in the decade long SEP litigation between Philips and Rajesh Bansal. The case was among the initial SEP

A new dawn, and a new pro-tem order is out from the Delhi High Court. A short while ago I wondered if temporary deposit orders were here to stay, seems like the answer is yes! The Malikie v. Xiaomi pro-tem order is not the best news for the development of Indian SEP jurisprudence. It adds confusion to assessment of essentiality, nuances of rate calculation and shows the faults of finding reasonings in precedents where fact-sensitive analysis require different decisions. The

The Indian jurisprudence on ‘pro-tem’ security deposits in FRAND trials has been twelve years in the making at the Delhi High Court. Full details of the contents of pro-tem orders have been frequently discussed on the blog, see here, here, here and here. In this post, I am concerned particularly with what justifications have been used by the court to develop its pro-tem jurisprudence – creative expansions of the SEP litigation strategy toolkit are welcome, but not at the cost