Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

INDIA’S FIRST ANTI-ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION (OR A2SI) ORDER: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

On 03 May, 2021, the Delhi High Court in InterDigital Corp & Ors. v Xiaomi Corp & Ors. issued its first and presumably first global A2SI InterDigital v Xiaomi DHC 03052021.pdf 1.47 MB (this terminology was first introduced by Florian Mueller on his blog fosspatents.com here).  The judgment confirms its earlier order of 09.10.2020 in favour of InterDigital.  See previous post here. In its judgment, the court has directed Xiaomi to indemnify InterDigital against any penalty, if issued by the Wuhan court.  Readers would remember that the Wuhan court had issued a penalty of RMB 1 million (~ $150,000) per day against InterDigital in its Anti-Suit Inj... Continue reading

NAVIGATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND ISSUE ESTOPPEL THROUGH THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT AND 498-A IPC

First posted 19.01.2021 here.The factual background:  A case was filed against Person A, a male, under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, by person B, a female. In this petition, a magistrate determined that the issue whether there was a marriage / marriage like relationship between the parties requires trial. The order was overturned by a sessions judge in appeal on grounds that neither there was a marriage between the parties, nor there was a marriage like relationship between them. A year later, B files a petition under Section 498A of the IPC against A and charges are framed against him.In this post, we look at issues about issue estoppel and double jeopardy. At first blush, there seems t... Continue reading

DHC IS NOW A HOTBED OF SEP LITIGATION - PHILIPS SUES VIVO & XIAOMI FOR INFRINGING LTE PATENTS

Some time back, I had posted that Philips had sued Vivo and others, on the blog here.  The Delhi High Court in two separate orders has issued orders against Vivo and Xiaomi to secure Philips interest during trial (see attached orders below).This post focusses on the value on the basis of which Philips interest is secured.  The operative part from the judgments first:Philips v. Vivo 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that in order to hasten the trial in the suit and final adjudication, the following directions can be issued:   (i) The defendant nos. 1 and 2 will not create any encumbrance or third party rights in the immovable property and the superstructure described as follows: “IT... Continue reading