Point of Law: Interrogatories are intended to cut short trial. Time and expenses can be saved by interrogatories being served upon adversary. While it is trite that one who asserts must prove and that burden of proof never shifts, however, interrogatories may be served upon adversary.

ORDER :

I.A. 3048/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XI, Rules 2 and 14 CPC as amended by the commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking discovery by interrogatories and production of certain documents from the defendants No.l and 2)

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rules 2 & 14 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Section 151 CPC seeking discovery by interrogatories and production of certain documents from the defendants No.1 and 2.

2. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants were infringing five of its patents, namely, (i) Indian Patent Number: IN 275419: A method of operating a radio communication apparatus and a radio communication apparatus; (expires on 10.8.2026), (ii) Indian Patent Number: IN 271469: A method of multiplexing data packets having different assigned priorities; (expires on 4.11.2025), (iii) Indian Patent Number: IN 228133: A method of operating a radio communications system; (expires on 20.4.2024), (iv) Indian Patent Number: IN 221703: A method of operating a radio communication system; (expired on 8.5.2020 and is being asserted for past infringement), (v) Indian Patent Number: IN 211041: A radio communication system and a method for operating the same. (expired on 24.12.2019 and is being asserted for past infringement).

3. It is stated that the suit patents (including the expired patents) relate to four different technologies used in the field of telecommunications namely, (i) Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) technology (sometimes also referred to as 3G or WCDMA), (ii) High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA) technology, (iii) Evolved High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA+) technology and, (iv) Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology. These are all technologies which the plaintiff claims have been standardized by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and adopted by various standard setting organizations (SSOs)/Standard Development Organizations (SDOs) including European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). It is also claimed that in India too, these are the prescribed standard essential patents, which are usually exploited by manufacturers/importers, including the defendants.

4. The suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing/assembling, importing, selling, offering for sale, advertising including through their and third party websites, mobile phones including the models mentioned in the plaint and any future or other devices or models, that include UMTS enhancements (HSPA, HSPA+) and LTE technologies and result in infringement of the suit patents until the defendants have procured Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory (FRAND) license from the plaintiff. Inter-alia, damages have also been sought for the past use of all the patents including those that have since expired.

5. Mr. Chander Lall, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has submitted that the defendants in their written statement have stated that they were not liable to make any payment to the plaintiff even under FRAND and as they had obtained their chipsets from Qualcomm and MediaTek, the defendants were not liable for any infringement. It is in these circumstances, the instant application has been moved for production of the license agreements executed between the defendants and Qualcomm and other companies, as it would help to determine the truth in the claim of the defendants. Thus, the lis could be determined from the disclosure made. It was submitted that the interrogatories were therefore to be allowed and the question of relevancy need not be considered at this stage.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that an application under Order XI Rules 2 & 14 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Section 151 CPC cannot be routinely allowed and the court had to cons