https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462705 The Delhi HC held that Ericsson proved ownership of the suit patents and that Lava's counterclaim was not time-barred. Applying Section 3(k) and the patentability tests, the Court invalidated IN 203034 for want of novelty/inventive step, while upholding the remaining seven patents and rejecting insufficiency and misrepresentation challenges. On standard essential patents, Ericsson established essentiality and infringement through claim charts and standard-compliance analysis, and Lava's exhaustion defence failed. The Court found Lava to be an unwilling licensee, accepted comparable licences as the FRAND benchmark, used the end-device price as the royalty base, and awarded damages for the relevant period on a FRAND basis. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2025 15:26:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462705 The Delhi HC held that Ericsson proved ownership of the suit patents and that Lava's counterclaim was not time-barred. Applying Section 3(k) and the patentability tests, the Court invalidated IN 203034 for want of novelty/inventive step, while upholding the remaining seven patents and rejecting insufficiency and misrepresentation challenges. On standard essential patents, Ericsson established essentiality and infringement through claim charts and standard-compliance analysis, and Lava's exhaustion defence failed. The Court found Lava to be an unwilling licensee, accepted comparable licences as the FRAND benchmark, used the end-device price as the royalty base, and awarded damages for the relevant period on a FRAND basis. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462705