JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para Nos.

THE CROSS-APPEALS

2-4

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INTEX

5-12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ERICSSON

13-31

REJOINDER ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INTEX

32-33

REJOINDER ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ERICSSON

34

COURT'S REASONING

35-151

Impact of rapid developments in technology on Intellectual Property laws

35-38

Categories of Standards and their importance

39-59

What is a Standard Essential Patent and what are the obligations of holders of such patent

60-62

FRAND imposes obligations on both the Standard Essential Patent holders and implementers

63-73

Concept of Standard Essential Patents is not unknown to Indian Law

74-75

Standard Essential Patent owners can seek injunctive relief if an infringer/implementer is an unwilling licensee

76-91

What is the test of infringement in a Standard Essential Patent matter?

92-98

Injunction can be granted even if infringement of one patent is prima facie established

99-104

Whether a Standard Essential Patentee can offer a portfolio licence including a licence involving disputed or potentially disputed foreign Patents

105-111

The four-fold test in Nokia Vs. Oppo (supra) is contrary to law

112-117

Ericsson's claims of essentiality of its patents and infringement by Intex