China vs China: Coolpad may take Xiaomi to court in India

Chinese smartphone maker Coolpad is open to moving Indian courts against IPO-bound rival Xiaomi over patent infringement, after the company filed seven such cases in China in two different courts since January this year.

Coolpad’s chief intellectual property officer told ET that Indian laws protected patent holders’ interest, which made the South Asian nation’s courts a strong option for litigation, citing the example of Ericsson suing Xiaomi in a local court which lead to an interim bar on sales of specific Xiaomi phones.

“India is one of the key markets, and India has the reputation for protecting intellectual property rights, has better laws and systems to protect patent holders.

As we saw in the Ericsson-Xiaomi case, we feel that India is a good ground for protecting patents,” Zhang said when asked whether the company would file a lawsuit here.

“Because our products are sold in India and we’re a company focused on protecting our IP assets, we will file a case in any country where we have a good chance to get good remedies,” she added.

Coolpad Group’s subsidiary, Yulong Computer Telecommunication Scientific, has filed six cases in Shenzen Intermediate People’s Court, Guangdong province, in January, and one in Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu province, in May, against Xiaomi Telecom, Xiaomi Technology and Mi Home Business, citing patent infringement and has sought immediate bar on production and sale of certain mobile phone models.

Yulong claims that models including Xiaomi Mi Max 2, Xiaomi Note 3, Xiaomi Mi 5X, Xiaomi Redmi Note 4X and Mi Mix 2, use three patents on interface, applications, icon configuration and dual-SIM card and dual-stand-by technologies, which enable basic communication, display and interaction functions that belong to the company. The first hearings are expected in September.

Xiaomi, which has maintained its No 1 position in the Indian smartphone market since December 2017, said that it was aware of the motion filed by Coolpad’s subsidiary in China, but has sought that the patent rights be declared invalid.

“Xiaomi understands that the filing has yet to be accepted by the court. Xiaomi has requested the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO to declare the invalidation of the three patent rights regarding the above-mentioned patent infringement law suit,” it said in response to ET’s queries.

With the strong growth in smartphone sales, India has become a battleground for lawsuits alleging patent infringement.

A key player in this field is Sweden’s Ericsson which has taken several mobile phone companies including Xiaomi, Micromax, Gionee and iBall to court seeking royalties for using its standard essential patents (SEPs) on 2G and 3G technologies, since 2015.

In the specific case of Xiaomi, the Swedish gear maker got an interim injunction against sale of models using Chinese chipmaker Mediatek’s chipsets in India, which forced Xiaomi to sell only those with chipsets from Qualcomm.

Xiaomi eventually entered into an agreement with the US-based chipmaker, but its lawsuit with Ericsson remains pending in the Delhi High Court.

But not all have been as successful. Indian brands like iBall and Micromax have settled with Ericsson, with Micromax taking a global patent license from Ericsson, under which it will pay royalties on every phone sold in India and overseas which uses 2G or 3G technology.

Supreme Court refuses to stay CLAT counselling process

THE SUPREME Court gave a go-ahead for counselling for students who have cleared the Common Law Entrance Admission Test (CLAT), 2018, for admissions to the country’s top law universities. A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ashok Bhushan refused to stay the counselling but clarified that “any further steps in the matter would be subject to further orders” of the court. “We cannot stop it,” the bench said.

Meanwhile, the report of the Grievance Redressal Committee, set up by National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, to look into complaints about technical glitches during the exam held on May 13, was placed before the court Wednesday.

The bench directed that copies of the same be supplied to the parties. “In the meanwhile, the registry may furnish copies of the report of the Grievance Redressal Committee, appointed vide order dated May 25, to the counsel appearing for the parties,” it said.

The court had directed formation of the committee after some students approached it complaining about glitches in the test held on May 13 causing loss of crucial time.

whether the NCLAT can dismiss a statutory appeal?

 On 18 May 2018, in M/s B Himmatlal Agrawal (Appellant) v Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 5029 of 2018], the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) distinguished the decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) while disposing of a statutory appeal under the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the NCLAT can dismiss a statutory appeal for non-compliance of its interlocutory direction to deposit a portion of the penalty as a condition for grant of interim relief. In this instant case, the Supreme Court set aside part of the NCLAT's order and restored the appeal that had been dismissed by the NCLAT. 

Background

The CCI found the Appellant guilty of rigging the bids for tenders floated by Western Coalfields Limited and correspondingly imposed a penalty of INR 3,61,00,000, which was ordered to be deposited within 60 days (CCI Order). The Appellant filed an appeal before the NCLAT against the CCI Order, seeking inter alia a stay of the penalty deposit. In response, the NCLAT granted a stay against the CCI Order (NCLAT Stay Order), with a condition that the Appellant was to deposit a sum equal to 10% of the total penalty (Deposit). However, the Appellant was unable to execute the Deposit due to financial distress. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the NCLAT Stay Order. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal against the NCLAT's decision before the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recognised that the right to appeal is provided under Section 53B of the Competition Act and that the said provision does not require any pre-deposit of penalty for entertaining an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal granted by a statute cannot be curtailed by imposing a condition of pre-deposit of penalty, which can result in the dismissal of the appeal, if such deposit is not satisfied.

The Supreme Court declared that non-compliance of the NCLAT Stay Order will not impact the substantive appeal. As the condition of deposit was attached to the NCLAT Stay Order, any non-compliance would result in the NCLAT Stay Order ceasing to operate, as the pre-condition is not fulfilled. However, the substantive appeal would have to be decided on merits after giving the involved parties an opportunity to be heard.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside part of the NCLAT Stay Order and directed that the appeal be restored and decided on merits. The stay order remained vacated on ground of the non-compliance.

http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/707524/Antitrust+Competition/Supreme+Court+Clarifies+NCLATs+Powers+In+Appeal

Intellectual Property Markets

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are hardly new. Trademarks came first, in the 1200s in England. Patents were next, in the 1400s in Italy. Copyrights emerged in the early 1700s in England. For the United States, laws passed in the 1790s protected patents and copyrights. Trademark laws arrived in the 1870s following legislative activity throughout Europe. These are the three primary types of intellectual property (IP) that can be “registered” with governments for protection. Each are made public, and available statistics for all countries make it possible to track global activity.

Registered IP Boom: What is happening is not a surprise. There are several factors, besides globalization and competitiveness, that fuel the growth. First is the ability to monetize IP. IP used to be part of the price of a product. It still is, but it can also be sold or licensed or bartered in an increasingly liquid marketplace. Transactable IP, which began in the early 2000s, increased the size of the available market. Providers of software and services could now create many more capabilities than simply IP inventory management systems for companies.

Open innovation came of age a few years later, spurred by giants such as Procter & Gamble that set a goal to in-source 50% of their innovations from other companies. As the internet increasingly enabled global connectivity, big data and algorithmic analytics came of age. All the pieces were now in place to take a company’s IP portfolio and compare it to any company or set of global statistics.

Finally, coming full circle, this easily comparative global information spurred further growth as analysts warned companies about not keeping up with the Joneses. Geometric growth has been going on for the past five to seven years.

IP Networks: Another important growth driver are IP organizations that are not the actual governmental registration bodies. Western economic zones have assembled neighboring countries into consortiums and/or empowered agencies that oversee activities and influence country policies and legislation, such as Europe, Eurasia, the Arab States, and Africa. Asian countries appear to be taking a more solo approach.

On a larger scale, the World Intellectual Property Organization has become an increasingly important player. It was established in 1967 by the United Nations as a self-funding agency. It is located in Geneva, Switzerland, and represents 191 of 195 countries. WIPO, as it is known, is the global forum for IP services, policy, information, and cooperation. It is a great source of information on all registered IP. Get on their e-mail list and you will have your finger on the pulse.

Patents & Trademarks: There will always be regional, vertical, and other types of segment competitors, but a look at several WIPO’s global services likely portends the future of IP. WIPO offers three global registration platforms: for utility patents (PCT), design patents (Hague), and trademarks (Madrid). Users file a single “international application” directly with WIPO, which then handles the various country filings. This is a great assist for emergent countries and regions, and is also increasingly used by industrialized nations which already have plenty of infrastructure for registration and enforcement.

Copyrights: Copyrights are also increasingly being monetized. After the “free thinking” period when the internet boom began, the realization that content has value started to return. Giant companies and organizations around the globe now compete to gather and charge for access to their content. The list is long. Copyrights have a couple interesting twists. First is the ability to digitally identify every single publication, a systems capability that has been evolving since 1998.

Does it sound to you like the future of registered IP is headed to be a transactable commodity?

With IBC norms changed, Jaypee homebuyers to rerun case

Hopeful of getting a fair treatment after reclassification as financial creditors, the homebuyers of Jaypee Infratech are planning to approach the court to rerun the ongoing resolution process under the amended Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The government on Wednesday approved changes in the IBC through an ordinance that gives homebuyers the status of financial creditors at par with banks in the insolvency resolution process. "Once the ordinance is promulgated upon getting President's assent, we will approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to rerun the resolution process,".

Jaypee has failed to deliver 25,000 flats to the buyers citing lack of funds. The realtor had raised around Rs 12,000 crore from the buyers for its Wishtown housing project in Noida in the National Capital Region.

Rerunning the case would mean starting the process from the stage of invitation of fresh bids and reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). So, even if the changes are prospective, it would not matter in this case, Rai said.

Currently, the resolution process is heavily tilted in favour of banks, whereas homebuyers have little say in it, homebuyers and lawyers feel.

Even as their contribution in most real estate projects is more than that of banks, homebuyers are unable to participate equitably, leave aside preferential treatment, rue lawyers and homebuyers.

Jaypee raised about Rs 12,000 crore from homebuyers in instalments and booking amount which was much higher than Rs 8,276 crore raised by it from the banks. However, homebuyers were offered only 30% as compared to banks which were offered 70% of the bid price of around Rs 10,000 crore earlier quoted by a company during the resolution process.

With better representation on the CoC, homebuyers hope to get this order reversed.

"This is likely to get reversed if the new bids are invited. Given that Rs 3,500 crore is required to complete the remaining 60% construction in the project, the homebuyers are likely to get 4-5% of the principal amount as delay compensation," Rai said.

However, even in this scenario, the homebuyers are looking at 20% haircut on an average instead of 42% expected earlier, experts point out.

Classification as financial creditors will allow homebuyers to have a greater say in the resolution process and protect their rights. Homebuyers will have voting rights and can now participate in the CoC meetings. Till now, they had no voting rights and were sitting outside the CoC.

A total of 66% members of the CoC can decide on a resolution process. This will allow homebuyers to insist the bidders to include delay compensation in the resolution plan.

However, "placing thousands of homebuyers on CoC could be tricky. Some of them may not come to vote, while others may have a different opinion,", one of Jaypee homebuyers.

Homebuyers will be treated at par with banks during the insolvency resolution process. However, if the resolution process fails and the company is forced into liquidation, homebuyers will be placed after the banks as realtor has given land assets as collateral.

http://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-with-ibc-norms-changed-jaypee-homebuyers-to-rerun-case-2618540

NCLAT admits banks’ petition over Jaypee Infratech land

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Thursday admitted a petition filed by banks against the NCLT order which had directed Jaiprakash Associates to return nearly 760 acres of land to its subsidiary Jaypee Infratech.

A two-member bench headed by Chairman Justice S J Mukhopadhaya also issued notices to the resolution professional (RP) of the company over the petition filed by three lenders -- Axis Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and ICICI Bank. The bench fixed July 13 as the next date of hearing.

During the proceedings, the appellate tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority (NCLT) does not have jurisdiction to declare any instrument illegal.

NCLAT was hearing the appeal over the order of the Allahabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had asked debt-ridden Jaiprakash Associates Ltd to return nearly 760 acres of land to its subsidiary Jaypee Infratech, declaring the transfer of the land as “fraudulent” and “undervalued”.

NCLT had directed JP Group’s flagship firm Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL) to release and discharge interest created over the land to lenders including ICICI Bank.

The order had come on a petition filed by Jaypee Infratech’s resolution professional (RP) Anuj Jain in the NCLT seeking direction over transactions entered into by the company’s promoters creating mortgage on 858 acres of land to secure debt for JAL.

CLAT 2018- SC Suggests To Form Nodal Agency To Examine The Grievances Of Candidates, Asks NUALS To Reply

The Supreme Court today asked Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2018 convenor Nuals Kochi to appoint an expert committee at the earliest to individually look into at least 251 CLAT 2018 candidates’ grievances with the conduct of the entrance exam this year.

Justices AM Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha heard senior advocate Salman Khurshid for CLAT 2018 candidate Disha Panchal and five other petitioners who had challenged the exam and asked for a stay on the results and for a fresh exam, on the ground that they suffered from precious time lost in answering the paper due to technical glitches in the conduct of the exam.

Senior advocate V Giri appeared for Nuals today and placed on record the computer “log reports” of the petitioners claiming that each of the six petitioners was compensated with extra time for the exact time lost on account of technical glitches.

Nuals also submitted that out of over 59,300 candidates who appeared for the CLAT 2018 LLB and LLM entrance exams, it has received 251 representations so far from aggrieved candidates claiming that they had suffered on account of errors and glitches in the exam, the petitioners’ counsel Anand Shankar Jha told us.

This leaves out possibly up to 2,120 other potentially aggrieved candidates, according to a Google form that had been opened up to responses by a free CLAT tutorial service.

Jha said that the court was of the prima facie view that there were indeed many glitches in the conduct of the exam and that Nuals should appoint a mechanism or constitute a committee to look into each individual grievance.

The judges asked Nuals to propose before the court tomorrow as to how soon it can constitute such a committee and what procedure the committee would follow to address candidates’ grievances.

The court also ordered a stay on the writ proceedings on before five other benches of various high courts by several CLAT 2018 candidates, i.e. before Rajasthan - Jodhpur and Jaipur, Punjab & Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi, making their outcome subject to the decision of the Supreme Court.

Additional solicitor general appeared for the ministry of human resource development (MHRD), which was also made a respondent in the case.

Jha said that the hearings in the matter will now proceed on a day to day basis and the next hearing is tomorrow.

https://www.legallyindia.com/pre-law-student/clatinsc-nuals-to-propose-mechanism-to-look-into-251-candidates-complaints-as-2000-other-unrepresentated-sc-stays-clat-2018-proceedings-in-all-hcs-20180524-9366

Supreme Court: No relief to LLB Student Short Of Attendance Due To Pregnancy.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant attendance relaxation to a second-year student of the LL.B course of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (DU) who had missed college due to her pregnancy.

The Petitioner, Ms. Ankita Meena had sought a direction to DU to permit her to appear in the IV semester LL.B Examination. She could not meet the requisite 70% attendance criteria, having missed almost 2 months of the semester due to her pregnancy.

The Supreme Court vacation bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha declined interim relief of being permitted to sit for her fourth semester examination scheduled at 2 PM on Wednesday.

The bench was hearing the SLP preferred by Ms. Meena against the May 15 judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Single Judge had placed reliance on University of Delhi v. Vandana Katari and Sukriti Upadhyay v. University of Delhi, besides Rule 12 of the BCI Rules of Legal Education, in refusing to grant her attendance relaxation.

Dismissing the SLP, the bench on Wednesday noted, “even maternity leave was not applied for… the objective of stipulating rules is to secure a sense of discipline…we cannot direct at 1 PM that a candidate may be allowed to take the examination at 2 PM...”

The bench, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. At an earlier stage, the bench had signified its consent to an arrangement that may be effected in this behalf with the acquiescence of the Respondent University.

In her petition, Ms. Meena had claimed a contravention of Rule 2(9)(d) of Ordinance VII of Chapter III of Delhi University Act of 1922, of her Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 21, her DPSP under Article 42 and the State’s Fundamental Duty under Article 51(c) [in the light of India being a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women], besides the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act.

She also referred to the landmark judgment in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza. The relevant extract of the said Rule 2(9)(d) reads as follows:

“In the case of a married woman student who is granted maternity leave, in calculating the total number of lectures delivered in the College or in the University, as the case may be, for her course of study in each academic year, the number of lectures in each subject delivered during the period of her maternity leave shall not be taken into account:”

The High Court had, however, noted that the position had been settled by a decision by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of University of Delhi & Anr. v. Vandana Kandari & Anr., wherein the Court had held that maternity leave cannot be put in a different compartment for the purposes of relaxation of attendance. The Court had further highlighted the fact that LL.B. is a “a special professional course where no relaxation can be granted contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules, which specifically governs the field.” It had then dismissed the Petition, observing, “In my considered view, once Rule 12 of Rules of Legal Education of the Bar Council of India prescribes a mandatory attendance of 70% in each semester of LLB, no reliance can be placed on Rule 2 (9) (d) of Ordinance VII of Chapter III of Delhi University, which is a general provision that does not deal with a professional course like LLB.”

Understanding Intellectual Property Rights

Anyone involved in software development today must have a keen understanding of the ins and outs of intellectual property rights, including copyright laws and patent development. But the area is so vast that it can be difficult to narrow down the most important points to start with.

Here we’ll outline five key areas that developers and others in the software industry should have a clear understanding of. This list may be especially useful for independent entrepreneurs who are focused on developing their own products or who are newcomers to the tech industry in general.

1. Trademarks

Trademarks protect your name, domain, images, and everything related to product design. You must register your trademark to ensure full and complete legal protection of your brand.

Quite simply, anyone who develops a piece of software should put in place the protection mechanisms that will solidly protect your brand name even before they go into the development process and especially before they partner with anyone else.

It’s important that software developers have a contemporary understanding of how trademarks work— not only to protect themselves but also to be aware of the rights and responsibilities of others that you may end up working with.

2. Open Source Agreements

One of the areas that can get particularly sticky when it comes to intellectual property is in the realm of purposefully shareable intellectual property like open source code. The main thing to know is that this type of software is actually copyrighted and developers are required to use it in accordance with specific licensing.

If a developer releases the finished work as open-source, there are different types of open source licenses, which the developer should be familiar with ahead of time. Depending on the license, there will be different permissions granted to the users of the software. However, developers that are creating software programs with the intention of having it end up as a part of an open source platform don’t need to abide by licensing rules.

3. Author Versus Owner

Ownership determination can be complex and especially in the case of open source software. However, in terms of employee-employer relationships, so long as someone is an employee, anything that they develop is not their own – the employer will always have the copyright, and this is the case no matter what role the developer plays in the development process.

If the developer is an independent contractor, they may be considered the owner unless there is a legally binding contract outlining other terms.

4. Trade Secrets

It may seem unethical to some who are focused on knowledge-sharing for the benefit of innovation to keep things a secret but sometimes it’s necessary since other forms of copyright will be both public and have certain limitations.

If a developer finds themselves with a highly original and valuable idea, it may be that they want to keep it a secret in order to maintain full control over the source code without risk of anyone copying it. A protection program will include confidentiality agreements, password protection and the like.

Trade secrets can be kept in perpetuity, but they do require that extensive steps be taken to ensure privacy – which of course gets more complicated depending on the size of a team.

5. Patents

A patent typically is in place for 20 years. Developers can get patents on software, but only if the invention is extremely original – in the software space this will pertain to the software itself (e.g., applications) and/or the algorithm incorporated in the design. Patents also require that you make the details of your invention public.

In Conclusion

All developers need to have a clear understanding of their rights in relation to any partnership employment scenario before they actually enter into a work agreement or even start developing their own unique product line.

https://www.lianapress.hk/releases/biotech/5-things-every-developer-must-know-about-intellectual-property-rights.html

Trademark Law - No confusion between words ‘Blacksmith’ and ‘Goldsmith’

Finding no case of infringement and passing off of mark ‘Blacksmith’ by mark ‘Goldsmith’, Delhi High Court has dismissed the suit for permanent injunction. It noted that dictionary meanings of words were different and they were unlikely to be remembered by breaking into two parts, i.e. Black and Smith or Gold and Smith.

The Court in the case of Jaideep Mohan v. Hub International Industries it was held that a consumer of the products of the plaintiff and the defendants was likely to remember the said products by the meaning thereof, i.e. of the composite word – ‘Blacksmith’ and ‘Goldsmith’, which translate in Hindi language to ‘Lohar’ and ‘Sunar’, respectively.

Distinguishing a number of judgments, it held that it was highly unlikely that a consumer of alcoholic beverage in Hindi speaking belt would get confused. Court in this regard also noted that there was no confusion on account of packaging or shape of bottle/container.

Dismissing the suit, the Court was of the opinion that the suit was not required to be put through the rigmarole of trial, when no case of infringement or passing off was found even at that stage.