Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(COMM) 692/2021 & CC 9/2022, I.A. Nos. 21645/2022, 32108/2024 & 35037/2024
INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand
Ms. Gitanjali Sharma, Advocates.
(M): 9145544111 Email: gitanjali@anandandanand.com
Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal
Parvati, Mr. Aniruddh Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari and Mr. Avijit Kumar, Advocates.
(M): 8943728551 Email: n.parvati@saikrishnaassociates.com
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv.
M: 9437506175 Email: vedant.kumar@trilegal.com
21997/2022 & 32107/2024 INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS INC & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand
Ms. Gitanjali Sharma, Advocates.
(M): 9145544111 Email: gitanjali@anandandanand.com
Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal
Parvati, Mr. Aniruddh Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari and Mr. Avijit Kumar, Advocates.
(M): 8943728551 Email: n.parvati@saikrishnaassociates.com
Mr. Sankh Sengupta, Mr. Aubert Sebastian and Mr. Vedant Kumar, Advs. for applicant.
M: 9437506175 Email: vedant.kumar@trilegal.com
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs praying that the parties be heard on the issue as regards what Patent Licence Agreements (“PLAs”), whether in full form or summaries, are to be provided to Mr. Jack Peng and Mr. Yori Xiao, the two in-house employees of the defendants, who are also, members of the Confidentiality Club. The present application has been filed on the premise that the plaintiff has always intended that for the individuals which comprise of the counsel and external experts in the Confidentiality Club from the defendants‟ side, to see the full PLAs, and the two in-house employees, to see only the summaries.
2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, it is contended as follows: 2.[1] The summaries give all the requisite information to Oppo‟s in-house employees to defend the case in India. The summaries contain information about the name of the licensee, duration of the licence, technology licensed, royalty paid, geographic area and other relevant terms. 2.[2] The summaries are sufficient for Oppo to give instructions to its counsel, participate in the trial and defend the case. The summaries strike a neat balance between Oppo‟s need to have information about InterDigital‟s Licensees and the need to protect sensitive business information of InterDigital and its licensees. 2.[3] In the parallel proceedings between the parties in the United Kingdom (“UK”), it was agreed between the parties that the two in-house employees of the defendants would access only summaries of the plaintiff‟s PLAs. The full agreements would be shown only to lawyers and external experts. This was formally ordered in the UK Court on 06th July, 2023. 2.[4] On the defendants‟ request, an exception was made in the UK proceedings and only the agreements for Huawei 2016 and Xiaomi 2021 were shown to the defendants‟ in-house employees. Accordingly, in line with the UK model, the two in-house employees of the Oppo named in the Confidentiality Club, should be given access to full PLAs only of Huawei 2016 and Xiaomi 2021. 2.[5] To maintain parity with the UK proceedings, the plaintiffs had proposed that the parties follow the same model of disclosure as in the UK proceedings. This is specifically recorded in the Paragraph 47(iv) of the judgment dated 21st February, 2024. This suggestion was also acceptable to the defendants, as recorded in Paragraph 48 of the judgment dated 21st February, 2024. 2.[6] The dispute between the parties in the UK Court is regarding determination of a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) rate payable by Oppo for a license to InterDigital‟s Patents. In the UK Confidentiality Regime, Oppo‟s employees could access only summaries initially, and had the right to ask for access to the full PLAs. However, Oppo asked for access only to Huawei 2016 and Xiaomi 2021. This was done after evidence was filed by the parties. The trial in the UK has concluded, without Oppo needing to see any other agreements. 2.[7] Oppo can seek access to full PLAs, at a later stage, if it can make out a case before this Court. Further, Oppo has had the summaries with it since 30th July, 2024. However, it has still not been able to show why the summaries are insufficient. 2.[8] Apple has given its written objection to InterDigital, and has demanded that nothing short of the UK model should be followed. 2.[9] Samsung‟s objections are before the Court by way of I.A. 32108/2024, filed by Samsung, seeking leave to intervene in the present suit.
2.10 Plaintiff‟s proposal was always to follow the UK model, which was acceptable to Oppo. It was only on the understanding that the UK model was being followed, that the plaintiff agreed to disclose the seven agreements on 05th April, 2024.
2.11 Further, the letter from Bird and Bird to Samsung, is only a private communication, and not InterDigital‟s argument to the court.
2.12 Oppo itself has requested the court to follow the UK Confidentiality Regime in response to InterDigital‟s discovery application for Oppo‟s PLAs. It cannot now choose not to follow the UK model to suit itself. The plaintiffs are justified in their request that the disclosure of PLAs should be strictly in accordance with the UK proceedings. Reliance is placed upon orders dated 05th April, 2024, 10th May, 2023, 21st February, 2024 and 31st May, 2024, in support of submissions made on behalf of plaintiffs.
2.13 After having agreed to a particular model in the UK, where their employees are given access only to summaries of the PLAs, the defendants‟ request to give the very same individuals, access to the full PLAs in these proceedings, is unfair. The defendants seek to unfairly gain confidential information about the plaintiff‟s agreements, which they themselves agreed not to access in the UK proceedings.
2.14 In addition, Rule 11 of the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, provides for maintenance of confidential and sensitive information by modes, such as redaction.
2.15 There is no contradiction in the plaintiffs‟ stand on what can be disclosed to the defendants‟ in-house employees.
2.16 Oppo‟s reliance on the decision dated 16th December, 2020 in the case of InerDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. Versus Xiaomi Corporation & Ors. in CS(COMM) 295/2020, is misplaced. The said decision is an interlocutory order, as it did not finally decide the rights of the parties. The said suit was finally settled between the parties and the suit was withdrawn. Thus, all interlocutory orders stood vacated. This vacation of all interim orders was further re-affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25th February, 2022 in SLP (C) No. 3159-3160/2021.
2.17 The decision in InterDigital Technology Corporation (supra) is not an authority on whether all pertinent information about a PLA, as provided in a summary, is insufficient.
2.18 The summaries of the PLAs are sufficient to educate the in-house employees of the defendants, about critical aspects of the plaintiffs‟ PLAs. Such information is enough to discuss with and give instruction to the defendants‟ external experts.
3. On behalf of the defendants, it has been contended as follows: 3.[1] Oppo‟s stand has always been that it wants access to disclosure of full PLAs. In Paragraph 48 of Judgment dated 21st February, 2024, Oppo had demanded disclosure of full PLAs. In Paragraph 58 of the said judgment, the court set up a Confidentiality Club consisting of the in-house employees. 3.[2] In the order dated 10th May, 2023, the two year restriction to take part in the licensing negotiations, upon the in-house employees, was suggested by the plaintiffs. 3.[3] The PLA disclosure is necessary for fixation of FRAND rate. Oppo will have to study the PLAs to see if it is comparable to the licensees, and what royalties are payable. 3.[4] Bird and Bird, i.e., UK counsel‟s letter dated 07th June, 2024 to Samsung states that PLAs shall be disclosed to the members of the confidentiality Club, including the in-house representatives of the defendants, who are members of the Confidentiality Club, in terms of the order dated 05th April, 2024, passed by this Court. 3.[5] The judgment dated 16th December, 2022 in CS(COMM) 295/2020, InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. Versus Xiaomi Corporation & Ors., has specifically dealt with the issue of inclusion of the in-house representatives of the parties to the Confidentiality Club and held that the defendants‟ representatives ought to be part of the Confidentiality Club and be provided access to the plaintiffs‟ licences. Merely because the parties settled the dispute ultimately cannot take away the precedential value of a judgment of a Court, which has adjudicated upon a question of law and decided the rights of the parties. 3.[6] The plaintiffs have taken a contradictory stand before this Court and are deliberately delaying the proceedings, with no delay attributable to the defendants. 3.[7] Thus, the defendants‟ in-house representatives ought to be provided access to the full PLAs, i.e., seven agreements, except Samsung, since application of Samsung is currently pending.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs claiming infringement against the defendants in respect of their patents being IN 262910, IN 295912, IN 313036, IN 32018[2] and IN 31967[3], which the plaintiffs claim are Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”), in respect of 3G, 4G and 5G Standardized Technology.
6. The defendants had earlier filed an application being I.A. 11485/2022 seeking constitution of a Confidentiality Club, with inclusion of the in-house representatives of the parties. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, vide Judgment dated 21st February, 2024, this Court constituted a Confidentiality Club, with inclusion of the in-house representatives of the parties, in the following manner: “xxx xxx xxx
48. As far as Mr. Saikrishna, ld. Counsel, is concerned regarding the establishment of the confidentiality club, he proposes that the U.K. model could be adopted. However, instead of merely presenting summaries, the actual agreements should be disclosed to the members of the club. He refers to similar rulings by a Co-ordinate Bench in CS(COMM) 581/2019 titled ‘Nokia Technology v. Lenovo Group Ltd.’, where no such restriction was imposed. Mr. Saikrishna, ld. Counsel, notes that in the U.K., initially, only summaries were shared with the employees of the Defendants under a two year embargo, leaving open the possibility of disclosing the full agreements at a later stage if necessary. His client is agreeable to this approach. xxx xxx xxx
58. In the present case, as recorded in the background of facts and submissions, a significant number of third party licenses and agreements from both InterDigital and the Defendants are likely to be exchanged between the parties. The interests of such third parties cannot be compromised by either InterDigital or the Defendants, as they are not involved in the confidentiality club discussions or proceedings. The terms under which such third parties may have entered into licenses with either InterDigital or the Defendants could be very specific to the facts or customized in a manner that suits the purpose and circumstances prevailing at the time the agreement was made. Furthermore, the agreements may reveal sensitive businessrelated information pertaining to these third parties. Therefore, after reviewing the members suggested by both sides for the establishment of a confidentiality club and considering the purpose of such a club in the context of this case, the following confidentiality club is hereby constituted:
60. The mandate of the confidentiality club as constituted above, shall be in terms of the following provisions: • Chapter VII, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 • Annexure -F of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. • Rule 19 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 • Rule 11 of the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022
61. The conditions to be imposed on the members of the Club and the information that is to be disclosed shall be dealt with in I.A.s 11485/2022 and 11484/2022. List for that purpose on 23rd February,
2024. xxx xxx xxx”
7. Thereafter, vide order dated 05th April, 2024, restrictions were imposed on the in-house representatives of the parties in Confidentiality Club, with the following directions:
2. It has now been further agreed by the parties that the restriction inhouse representatives of the parties in Confidentiality Club will be in the following terms: “The in-house representatives of the Defendants undertake to not become involved in any negotiations with the Counterparty (without the counterparty’s consent), whose agreement is placed under aegis of the Confidentiality Club. This restriction shall expire after a period of two years since the date of being provided access to the Counterparty’s agreement, unless the in-house representatives cease to be employed, directly or otherwise, by any of the defendants of its subsidiaries / affiliates”
3. It is agreed between the parties that these 7 agreements will be made part of the Confidentiality Club, already instituted by this Court.
8. Combined reading of the judgment dated 21st February, 2024 and order dated 05th April, 2024, makes it evident that the intent of the Court has always been that actual agreements should be disclosed to the members of the club. Pertinently, vide judgment dated 21st February, 2024 this Court had set up a Confidentiality Club with inclusion of the in-house representatives of the parties. No segregation has been made in the said order between the in-house representatives and the external members.
9. Further, it was agreed by the parties that the in-house representatives of the defendants shall not become involved in any negotiations with the counter party, whose agreement is placed under the aegis of the Confidentiality Club, for a period of two years. Thus, it is clear that the intent of the order dated 05th April, 2024 was that the in-house representatives would be shown the agreements, subject to a two year restriction from being involved in any negotiations with the counter parties, whose agreements are placed in the Confidentiality Club. The order dated 05th April, 2024 does not refer to any summaries being provided to the inhouse representatives.
10. Further, this Court also takes note of the Email dated 04th April, 2024, sent by the plaintiffs to the defendants in this regard, which reads as under: Dear Anirudh, We confirm that the language reproduced below, is acceptable to the Plaintiffs in the captioned suits, for the restriction on the in-house representatives of the Confidentiality club- “The in-house representatives of the Defendants, undertake to not become involved in any negotiations with the Counterparty (without the Counterparty’s consent), whose agreement is placed under the aegis of the Confidentiality Club. This restriction shall expire after a period of two years since the date of being provided access to the Counterparty’s agreement, unless the in-house representatives cease to be employed, directly or otherwise, by any of the Defendants or its subsidiaries/affiliates.” Best regards, Gitanjali Sharma Counsel for the Plaintiffs
11. It is also to be noted that plaintiffs issued a Letter vide E-mail dated 07th June, 2024 to Samsung, wherein, the plaintiffs recognized that they were obligated to disclose the agreements in the present proceedings pursuant to the order dated 05th April, 2024. The E-mail dated 07th June, 2024 issued by the plaintiffs, is reproduced, as hereunder:
12. Reading of the aforesaid Letter clearly shows that the plaintiffs also accepted and acknowledged the intent of the order dated 05th April, 2024, that the PLAs in question, were to be shown in full to the members of the Confidentiality Club, including, the in-house representatives of Oppo.
13. Further, this Court vide order dated 09th July, 2024 directed the plaintiffs to show the agreements to the members of the Confidentiality Club. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted as under:
6. In view of the order passed today, it is directed that the other six agreements, except the one agreement of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., shall be shown by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, to the members of the Confidentiality Club, in accordance with the previous orders, passed by this Court.
14. This Court notes that vide Judgment dated 31st May, 2024, this Court has already directed the defendants to show the defendants‟ agreement with Qualcomm to the members of the Confidentiality Club, as constituted and expanded by orders of this Court. The said judgment does not in any manner restrict the exhibiting of the said agreement to the in-house employees/counsels, who are members of the Confidentiality Club. Relevant portion of the said judgment, is extracted as below:
30. In this case as well, the production of defendants’ agreement with Qualcomm would show as to what was the technology transferred by Qualcomm to defendants. This would be relevant to determine whether Qualcomm made any representation to the defendants that its chipsets were under lawful license from the plaintiffs. This forms the basis of the defendants’ plea that the Qualcomm chipsets practice the invention of the plaintiffs SEPs. To negate this, it would be relevant for the Court also to examine this agreement, as well as the plaintiffs to counter this contention by the defendants. The Court, therefore, sees no reason for plaintiffs’ request for discovery of the defendants’ Qualcomm agreement, not to be allowed. There is already a confidentiality club established by orders of this Court dated 21st February, 2024, later revised and expanded with consent of both parties on 20th March, 2024 and subsequently on 05th April, 2024. This agreement, if and when produced, can be made part of this confidentiality club in order that it remains confidential qua third parties.
37. Accordingly, I.A. 9355/2023 in CS (COMM) 692/2021 & I.A. 9384/2023 in CS (COMM) 707/2021 are allowed to the extent that the agreements executed by defendants with Qualcomm are to be disclosed by defendants and made part of the confidentiality club, and a copy of it may be filed before the Court in a sealed cover. Plaintiffs’ prayer for discovery of defendants’ Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements is rejected.
15. Thus, it is clear that categorical directions have already been given to the defendants to disclose their agreement with a third party, to the members of the Confidentiality Club and make the same as part of the Confidentiality Club. This Court has not precluded the in-house representatives of the plaintiffs from seeing the full agreement, and no directions have been given for showing only summaries to the in-house representatives of the plaintiffs, who form part of the Confidentiality Club.
16. The dispute in the present proceedings essentially pertains to the contention of the plaintiffs that they have complied with their FRAND obligations in respect of the defendants, for use of the plaintiffs‟ 3G, 4G and 5G SEPs, and that the defendants are unwilling licensees.
17. The plaintiffs have setup a case of infringement by the defendants in the plaint, in the following manner:
2. The Plaintiffs in the present suit relies upon its 5 (five) Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) all of which cover technology which is essential to wireless telecommunications standards developed within the framework of ETSI (European Telecommunication Standards Institute) and 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) including standards pertaining to 3G, 4G and 5G) wireless communication. As all the suit patents correspond to technical specification/standards relating to aforesaid technologies, thus the same are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are being used and exploited by the Defendants in various mobile handset/telecommunication devices being manufactured, imported, offered for sale, and sold in various countries including India. In fact, the import, manufacture, sale and offering for sale of the Defendants’ cellular handsets leads to the infringement of several other SEPs of the Plaintiffs as well.
4. It is the admitted position, as is evident upon a bare perusal of the Defendants’ website, that they are selling handsets/devices that are 3G, 4G and 5G compliant. Thus, the said devices necessarily infringe patents that are essential to 3G, 4G and 5G technologies. Despite the Plaintiffs’ numerous efforts at negotiating a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing agreement with the Defendants since 2014, the Defendants have been unwilling to secure a license to use the Plaintiffs’ patented technology on FRAND terms. Hence, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as the Defendants are unwilling licensees.
18. On the other hand, the defendants have denied any infringement by them. Further, it is the case of the defendants that plaintiffs‟ third party licence agreements are essential to decipher the value of the suit patents for determining the aggregate royalty rate of all Standard Essential Patents. The defendants have contended that since the defendants have never been given any access to plaintiffs‟ third party license agreements, it cannot be asserted that the defendants are unwilling licensees, in the absence of objective material to verify plaintiffs‟ FRAND claims. It is the clear stand of the defendants that without the benefit of looking at the third party agreements, it is impossible for the defendants to verify the FRAND claims of the plaintiffs. Thus, in their written statement, defendants have averred as follows:
14. Thus, the issue of essentiality cannot be presumed in favour of the Plaintiffs and, even after a patent is found to be an SEP, Courts are necessarily required to assess as to what would be the appropriate FRAND terms for the said patent, prior to considering grant of any reliefs in favour of the Plaintiffs. This FRAND assessment is a complicated process, that requires extensive expert evidence, as it would entail analysis under the “comparable agreements” approach, i.e., taking into consideration Plaintiffs’ third-party license agreements to decipher the value of the suit patents as licensed to third-parties and also the “top-down” approach through which this valuation can be verified by determining the true value of the suit patents by extrapolating the aggregate royalty rate of all SEPs reading on a particular standard, and then identifying the Plaintiffs’ contribution to this aggregate rate and relevance of the suit patents when seen with regard to the Standard in question.
FRAND determination also requires Courts to take into consideration the economic factors of a particular geography and the relevant industry which would greatly impact the price of an accused device and, thus, would necessarily dictate the value of the suit patents as well. For example, the fact that the purchasing power of a US citizen is quite different from that of an Indian citizen, which determines the price point(s) at which mobile devices are sold in both jurisdictions and, thus, these considerations should also be taken into account while determining the FRAND terms of the suit patents. Thus, FRAND rate is not a one-size-fits-all royalty rate, but is a value that balances the efforts of an SEP holder and the interests of an implementer. However, this Hon’ble Court cannot even begin to make enquiries into the Plaintiffs’ FRAND conduct as the Plaintiffs have refused to produce their third-party license agreements and, thus, such nondisclosure should be construed against them.
28. It is respectfully submitted that it is settled law that acquiescence amounts to consent, and therefore, there is no infringement of patent rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 at the chipset and due to the principle of international exhaustion as protected under 107 A (b) of the Patents Act, Plaintiffs cannot sustain a claim of infringement against the Defendants for merely incorporating the chipset. This assertion is, of course, being made without prejudice to the Defendants’ contentions that the suit patents are neither valid nor essential and thus, not infringed by the Defendants’ devices and under a hypothetical scenario of presuming the Plaintiffs’ claims were believed to be true for the sake of argument. Thus, in the absence of these third-parties, it is clear that the claim of infringement does not survive against the Defendants, and therefore, the suit deserved to be dismissed on this ground, as well. Regardless, no orders can be passed in the absence of these third parties.
659. In response to the contents of paragraph 97, it is denied that the Plaintiffs are committed to licensing their patents on FRAND terms. It is further vehemently denied that the Plaintiffs’ Suit Patents are essential to 3G/4G/5G standards. It is categorically denied that the strength of the Plaintiffs’ patents or their essentiality is supported by the Plaintiffs’ claims that many companies have taken license to the Plaintiffs’ portfolio of SEPs related to telecommunications. Claimed existence of license agreements does not attribute validity or essentiality to any patent. Further, since none of these license agreements are placed on record, Plaintiffs cannot even claim FRAND compliance on their strength. It is settled law that the issues of essentiality of patents are to be determined by National Courts by comparing the claims of the asserted patent with the portions of the asserted standards and not by placing reliance on any other extraneous considerations. Further, it is unclear as to if the Plaintiffs’ licensees had specifically reviewed the essentiality claims of the suit patents while entering into the claimed license agreements, or if the said license agreements indeed cover the suit patents. Since, the Plaintiffs have deliberately refused to produce their third-party license agreements, they cannot seek to place any reliance on the same, which, therefore, necessitates the dismissal of the present suit. However, the Defendants reserve their right to amend their Written Statement if the Plaintiffs are allowed to file their third-party license agreements (despite the Defendants’ objection that they are legally barred from relying upon said documents at this belated stage) on record and provide the Defendants access to the same. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs are bound to disclose each and every license agreement that they have executed in context of their telecommunication portfolio. Without the benefit of looking at each and every one of these agreements, it is impossible for either this Hon'ble Court or the Defendants to verify the FRAND claims of the Plaintiffs and accordingly their non-disclosure has to be construed against the Plaintiffs. Reliance is further placed on the Preliminary Submissions and Objections of the present Written Statement and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
660. In response to the content of paragraphs 98 and 99, it is denied that the Plaintiffs are fair or transparent in their conduct. Further, it is absurd that on one hand the Plaintiffs claim to be transparent and claim to promote awareness about terms of FRAND license agreements for their SEPs, yet they are not forthcoming with their third-party license agreements, which is the only way for prospective licensees to verify the royalty rates offered to other claimed thirdparty license holders. Moreover, the unfair, non-transparent and non- FRAND conduct of the Plaintiffs in context of the present negotiation has been detailed in the foregoing paragraphs the contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is submitted that in the absence of the Plaintiffs’ third-party license agreements, it cannot be confirmed if the standard base royalty rates as reproduced in the Plaint by the Plaintiffs were actually offered to any of their licensee nor does the website provide any clarity on the computations basis for the claimed standard base royalty rates as asserted by them. Moreover, as the Plaintiffs themselves admit in paragraph 99, that they may “offer, negotiate and execute license agreements… which may take into account the specific circumstances and needs of the licensees, including whether the licensee qualifies for additional discounts under Plaintiffs’ licensing program”. The above statement clearly demonstrates that different rates are ultimately agreed upon by different licensees and thus, the same necessitates the review of the third-party license agreements in order to ascertain the veracity of Plaintiffs’ FRAND claims. Reliance is further placed on the Preliminary Submissions and Objections of the present Written Statement and the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
19. Considering the submissions of the parties in the pleadings, in order to verify plaintiffs‟ FRAND claims and whether the defendants‟ conduct is that of an „unwilling licensee‟, the plaintiffs‟ third party licence agreements are crucial. In the present proceedings, this Court is required to adjudicate on the issue of infringement of specified patents by the defendants and to confirm/verify the royalty rates offered by the plaintiffs to other claimed third party licence holders. Therefore, it is imperative that defendants‟ inhouse representatives, who are members of the Confidentiality Club, are not precluded from seeing the agreements, which form subject matter of the present proceedings.
20. As noticed above, by order dated 05th April, 2024, a condition was imposed on the in-house representatives in the Confidentiality Club, in order to protect the sensitive information present in the third party agreements. The said condition prevents the in-house representatives from getting involved in any negotiations with the counterparty, without the counterparty‟s consent, for a period of two years from the date of disclosure of the third party agreements. The object of the condition imposed upon the in-house representatives, is to prevent them from taking advantage of the information disclosed in the Confidentiality Club. Thus, the in-house representatives cannot use the information disclosed in the Confidentiality Club to take a competitive advantage in future negotiations.
21. Accordingly, in view of the various orders passed by this Court, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment in showing the complete agreements to the in-house employees/representatives of the defendants, who form part of the Confidentiality Club.
22. As regards the Qualcomm Agreement to be shown by the defendants, this Court in the order dated 05th September, 2024, has recorded as follows:
8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submit that the Qualcomm agreement to be shown by the defendants to the plaintiff, shall be shown in full, to the In-House counsels, subject to the restrictions of two years that the said In-House counsels, shall not take part in negotiations with Qualcomm.
9. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that they do not intend to show the full agreements to the In-House counsels. He further submits that the said averment is only limited to one of the In-House counsels of the Confidentiality Club, i.e., Ms. Julia Mattis.
23. Thus, the defendants shall also show its full agreement with Qualcomm to all the members of the Confidentiality Club and no restriction has been placed by this Court as regards showing the same to the in-house representatives/employees of the plaintiffs, forming part of the Confidentiality Club.
24. As regards the Samsung Agreement, the same is subject matter of I.A. 32108/2024, which issue is being dealt separately.
25. Accordingly, it is directed as follows: 25.[1] The plaintiffs shall show the seven PLAs of the plaintiffs with third party entities, which are subject matter of the present proceedings, in full, to all the members of the Confidentiality Club, including, the in-house counsels/employees of the defendants, who are members of the 25.[2] The defendants shall show its full agreement with Qualcomm to the members of the Confidentiality Club, including in-house counsels/employees of the plaintiffs, who are members of the 25.[3] The in-house counsels/employees, who are members of the Confidentiality Club, shall not be involved in any negotiations with the counterparty (without the counterparty‟s consent), whose agreement is placed under the aegis of the Confidentiality Club, for a period of two years, from the date of being provided access to the counterparty‟s agreement.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 Au/kr