JUDGMENT :

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Interdigital Technology Corporation has sued Xiaomi Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Xiaomi"), alleging infringement, by Xiaomi, of Indian Patents Nos 262910, 295912, 298719, 313036 and 320182. It is alleged that Xiaomi is, without obtaining any license from InterDigital, using the technology, contained in these Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), held by InterDigital. InterDigital has, therefore, prayed, in its suit, that Xiaomi be injuncted, permanently, from manufacturing, selling, assembling, distributing, advertising, exporting, importing or using, in their devices, technology which infringes these SEPs. In the alternative, a direction is sought, to Xiaomi, to take a license, from InterDigital, for usage of its SEPs, on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, to be fixed by this Court.

2. With the suit, InterDigital filed IA 6440/2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and IA 6441/2020, under Chapter VII Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the Original Side Rules"). Arguments, in IA 6440/2020, are presently being heard. This judgement adjudicates IA 6441/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 and IA 6447/2020 in CS(COMM)296/2020.

3. Chapter VII Rule 17 of the Original Side Rules reads thus:

"17. Confidentiality Club. - When parties to a commercial suit wish to rely on documents/information that are commercially or otherwise confidential in nature, the Court may constitute a Confidentiality Club so as to allow limited access to such documents/information. In doing so, the Court may set up a structure/protocol, for the establishment and functioning of such Club, as it may deem appropriate. An illustrative structure/protocol of the Confidentiality Club is provided in Annexure F. The Court may appropriately mould the structure/protocol of the Club, based upon the facts and circumstances of each case."

4. The Confidentiality Club regime, admittedly, is standard protocol, especially while dealing with litigations involving allegation of patent infringement. Particularly in the case of SEP litigations, learned counsels for the parties are ad idem that such Confidentiality Clubs are routinely established by Courts. Learned Counsel, for both the sides before me, are veterans in intellectual property litigation, and, rightly therefore, there is no opposition, by Mr. Sai Krishna Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the defendant, to the setting up of a Confidentiality Club, per se. Mr. Rajagopal, however, joins serious issue with Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, regarding the structure of the Confidentiality Club, as sought by him. I am concerned, in the present case, therefore, not with whether a Confidentiality Club ought, or ought not, to be set up, but whether the Confidentiality Club could be set up in the manner sought by InterDigital.

5. Interdigital seeks, in its application, setting up of a "two-tier" Confidentiality Club, comprising an "outer tier" and an "inner tier". The documents which would be open to the members of the "outer tier", are denoted, in the application of InterDigital, as "Confidential Information", whereas the documents, to which members of the "inner tier" alone would have access, had been denoted as "Legal Eyes Only (LEO) Confidential Information". The difference between these two tiers, as visualised and suggested by InterDigital, is that the "outer tier" documents and material would be accessible to the advocates for both sides, experts appointed by them, as well as representatives of both parties, whereas the "inner tier" documents would be accessible only to the advocates for both sides (who would not be in-house counsel), and experts appointed by them. In other words, "inner tier" documents would not be accessible to representatives of the parties, other than "non-in-house" advocates and the experts appointed by them. More simply expressed, the parties, as well