JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - A. The Issue

1. This judgment adjudicates IA 8772/2020, whereby the plaintiff has sought, (i) an injunction, against Defendant Nos. 1 to 8, restraining them from enforcing, against the plaintiff, an anti-suit injunction order dated 23rd September, 2020, passed by the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, ("the Wuhan Court"), pending final disposal of the present proceedings, (ii) a direction to the defendants to immediately withdraw Case No. (2020) E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 169.1, filed by them before the Wuhan Court, (iii) a direction, to the defendants, to immediately withdraw the anti-suit injunction application, filed by them, before the Wuhan Court in the aforesaid complaint, and, (iv) imposition, on the defendants, of costs equivalent to the costs likely to be imposed on the plaintiffs by the Wuhan Court.

2. Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants, submits that his clients were not pressing prayer (ii) in the application, and had no objection to the defendants' pursuing their suit/complaint before the Wuhan Court. He submits that his clients are, however, pressing prayers (i), (iii) and (iv).

3. By order dated 9th October, 2020, I had injuncted the defendants, ad interim, from enforcing against the plaintiffs, the directions contained in the order dated 23rd September, 2020, of the Wuhan Court. It was made clear, however, that the observations and findings contained in the said order were only ad interim in nature and were not binding when the application would be taken up for final hearing. The application has, thereafter, been heard finally.

4. Detailed arguments were advanced, on behalf of the plaintiffs/ applicants, by Mr. Gaurab Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel and, on behalf of the defendants/respondents in the application, by Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. Saikrishna Rajgopal, learned counsel.

5. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel have been detailed and varied, and have provided the Court considerable food for thought. Needless to say, in adjudicating the present application, I have treated the case as, effectively, presented on a tabula rasa, and have not taken into account, therefore, the observations and findings contained in the order dated 9th October, 2020 supra.

B. Facts

6. Cs(Comm) 295/2020 alleges infringement, by the defendants, of certain Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), held by the plaintiff and registered in their name. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants manufacture cellular handsets, compliant with 3G and 4G standards which required, for their operation, technology contained in the SEPs held by the plaintiffs. Usage of such technology, without due authorisation, asserts the plaintiffs, amounts to infringement. The plaintiffs acknowledge that, given the peculiar incidents of SEP infringement law, they cannot monopolise, to themselves, the rights to use the SEPs and that, as a trade-off for being granted patent rights in respect thereof, they are also required to allow willing licensees to obtain licences from them, on the basis whereof such licensees could also operate the technology. These licences are, however, required to be granted by the plaintiffs, and availed by the licensees, at rates which are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). As such, in the suit, the plaintiffs have not sought an absolute injunction, against the defendants, from using the SEPs held by the plaintiffs, but have sought for an injunction in the event the defendants are not willing to obtain licences, from the plaintiffs, for use of the said SEPs, at FRAND royalty rates. The SEPs concerned are Indian patents IN 262910, IN 295912, IN 298719, IN 313036 and IN 320182, referred to, hereinafter, as IN 910, IN 912, IN 719, IN 036 and IN 182, for convenience.

7. Determination of the FRAND rate at which the defendants could obtain licences, from the plaintiffs for using the