Manmohan Singh, J.

I.A. No. 5768/2015 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC, by plaintiff) and I.A. No. 16011/2015 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC, by defendant)

1. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned pending applications. Although in the main suit, the remaining evidence of the defendant is yet to be recorded. The plaintiff would also be given last opportunity to produce the rebuttal evidence, if so desired by the plaintiff. The abovementioned applications were argued by both the parties from time to time. Many times proposal of settlement was discussed. As the trial in the main suit was in progress, in order to strike balance at one stage, the defendant offered to deposit a sum of Rs.30 crores with the Registrar General of this Court without prejudice, if the injunction application is disposed of and direction for expediting the trial is issued, so that, ultimately in case the suit is decreed, the said amount be adjusted towards the royalty in terms of FRAND agreement. The said proposal was not acceptable to the plaintiff as the plaintiff was insisting at least for a sum of Rs.50 crores out of which half of the amount should be paid to the plaintiff on account and the remaining half the defendant must deposit with the Court by way of fixed deposit. The said proposal of the plaintiff was not acceptable to the defendant. During the rejoinder arguments, the defendant completely changed its stand and refused to deposit any amount and asked the Court to decide the interim injunction application on merits. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to decide both pending applications.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant seeking inter alia to restrain violation and infringement of its rights in its patents being:

(i) IN 203034 titled as “Linear Predictive Analysis by synthesis encoding method and encoder”;

(ii) IN 203036 titled as “Apparatus of producing from an original speech signal a plurality of parameters”;

(iii) IN 234157 titled as “A method of encoding/decoding multi-codebook fixed bitrate CELP signal block”;

(iv) IN 203686 titled as “Method and system for alternating transmission of codec mode information”;

(v) IN 213723 titled as “Method and apparatus for generating comfort noise in a speech decoder”;

(vi) IN 229632 titled as “Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station”;

(vii) IN 240471 titled as “A mobile radio for use in a mobile radio communication system”;

(viii) IN 241747 titled as “A transcieving omit unit for block automatic retransmission request”.

3. The suit patents relate to three technologies in the field of telecommunications pertaining inter alia to 2G, EDGE and 3G devices (mobile handsets, tablets, dongles etc.), details of which are as under:-

(a) Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) speech codec – a feature that conserves use of bandwidth and enhances speech quality; (AMR)

(b) Features in 3G phones - Multi service handling by a Single Mobile Station & A mobile radio for use in a mobile radio communication system; (3G)

(c) Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) - A transceiving unit for block automatic retransmission request; (EDGE)

4. It is averred in the plaint that the suit patents have corresponding registered patents in several countries of the world. These technologies are essential for mobile devices (handsets, tablets, dongles etc.) to interoperate with network equipment, as per the standards prescribed by international standardization bodies that have been adopted and implemented in India by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) qua AMR, 3G and EDGE enabled devices. Copies of declarations made by the plaintiff to ETSI have been filed along with claim charts mapping the suit patents to concerned technical specifications of relevant standards in a sealed cover.

5. The plaintiff claims that M/s Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the mother co