Current AffairsIndia

Dolby moves Delhi High Court alleging violation of standard-essential patents by Reliance Jio, Reliance Retail

Dolby International has moved the Delhi High Court alleging violation of its standard-essential patents in the field of audio coding technologies by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and Reliance Retail Limited (Dolby International vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited).

Senior Advocate Chander Lall, appearing for Dolby, today told a single-judge Bench of Justice Jayant Nath that Reliance was claiming that its handsets/devices were compliant with the ISO/IEC standards related to the technology in question, in spite of the absence of any licence agreement with Dolby.

Lall stated that more than 900 handset and set-top box manufacturers around the world, including companies like Apple and Microsoft, were using the said patented technology under a licence agreement from Dolby.

However, Reliance had opted to be an “unwilling licence” in spite of Dolby approaching for sharing the technology on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms, Lall submitted.

It was added that Reliance’s offer of USD 10 million royalty for the next five years of sale was “unacceptable” as opposed to Dolby’s estimate of USD 140 million for past and future sales.

Dolby said that taking into account the royalty it was seeking from other licensees, it could not agree with the offer made by Reliance.

Dolby’s application for an ex parte interim order was opposed by Reliance Jio who was represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul.

Kaul asserted that Dolby’s claim of monopoly over the technology in question was their own claim or self-certification.

There is a fundamental misconception of it being a Standard Essential Patent, he added.

Kaul argued that there could be no interim order in the suit without Reliance being given a chance to file its response.

While listing the matter for further hearing on March 8, the Court asked Reliance to state on the next date if it was using the technology in question for its devices and how much royalty it is willing to pay, if at all.

Lall was briefed by Singh & Singh Law Firm. Saikrishna & Associates briefed Kaul.


Via Bar & Bench
Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker