To obtain an injunction, the party must establish a prima facie case of infringement, show that the balance of convenience favors them, and demonstrate irreparable loss. The court may refuse an injunction if the party can be adequately compensated in terms of money or if the interests can be protected through other directions.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This order shall dispose of an application being I.A. No.2112/2014 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for confirmation of the ad interim stay granted on 03.02.2014 in the present suit.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present suit for injunction has been filed by Vringo Infrastructure Incorporation, plaintiff No.1, a wholly owned subsidiary of Vringo Incorporation, plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.1 is alleged to have been founded in 2012 and is engaged in innovation and development of telecommunication technologies and intellectual property. It is alleged that plaintiff No.1’s research and development efforts have resulted in filing over 25 patent applications in 2013 apart from the fact that the plaintiffs’ intellectual property portfolio consists of patents and patent applications covering technologies pertaining to internet search and search advertising, handsets and telecommunications infrastructure and wireless communications. It is alleged that these patents and the patent applications have either been developed internally by the plaintiff No.1 or have been acquired from third parties.

3. The plaintiff No.2 is stated to have been founded in 2006 and till the recent sale of its mobile partnerships and application business in February, 2014, developed and distributed mobile application products and services through partnerships with handset manufactures and mobile network operators. The plaintiff No.2 offers its social and video ringtone mobile applications globally through mobile application stores.

4. In the instant case, the plaintiffs are alleging infringment of patent No.IN 200572 (hereinafter referred as IN ‘572) which is titled as ‘a method and a device for making a handover decision in a mobile communication system’. It is alleged that the aforesaid invention is a method and device for making a handover decision in a mobile communication system comprising of at least one microcell (A, B, C) the coverage area of which is at least one mainly located within the coverage area of another cell (M) as shown herein below in the picture.

5. The method comprises of measuring at a mobile station, a radio signal transmitted by a base station of a microcell and reporting the measurement results at substantially regular intervals and commanding the mobile stations defined as slow moving mobile stations to switch to the base station of a suitable microcell. The application of this device has been explained with the help of following pictorial positions of a base tower in the context of a mobile handset.

CHART

6. On the basis of the aforesaid diagram, it was sought to be explained that if a mobile phone is moving at a very fast speed from one station to another station then, the frequency of that microcell would keep on changing from one microcell to another microcell so that the clarity of sound is not impaired and further the band width in such a case would be occupied more in comparison to a phone which remains stationary or is located within the region of one microcell, where the band width of that microcell would be much less.

7. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.3/ZTE Telecom Indian Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of India and is wholly owned subsidiary of defendant No.4. The defendant No.4, ZTE Corporation, is a company incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China. Defendant No.2 is the Chief Executive Officer of the defendant No.3 and has a principal and strategic control over the business of defendant No.3. It has been alleged that defendant No.4, Chinese company, is involved in the manufacturing and selling of telecommunications equipment and devices such as mobile handsets, dongles, tablets, infrastructure equipment and devices, etc. It is alleged that the defendants are infringing the suit patent of the plaintiffs by manufacturing, importing, selling, offering fo