A clear and unequivocal admission of liability is required for interim deposits under Order XXXIX Rule 10, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

I.A. 7700/2021 in CS (COMM) 303/2021

[This judgement redacts all figures and details over which confidentiality has been claimed by the parties. They are, therefore shown by way of asterisks (*****)].

1. This judgement adjudicates I.A. 7700/2021, filed by the plaintiff Nokia Technologies ('Nokia', hereinafter) against the defendant Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd ('Oppo', hereinafter) in CS (Comm) 303/2021.

2. Nokia is the holder of various patents, of which the present dispute primarily concerns itself with three. These are (i) Indian Patent No. 286352 (IN `352) titled 'System and Method for Providing AMR-WB DTX Synchronization', (ii) Indian Patent No. 269929 (IN `929) titled 'Method Providing Multiplexing for Data Non Associated Control Channel' and (iii) Indian Patent No. 300066 (IN `066) titled "Additional Modulation Information Signaling for High-Speed Downlink Packet Access". According to Nokia, the three suit patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), which are necessary to work the technology for making cellular systems 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G compliant. Inasmuch as the defendant Oppo, in its cellular handsets, employs 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G technology, Nokia contends, in its plaint, that Oppo must necessarily be using the technology contained in the three SEPs forming subject matter of the present dispute. To support the contention that Oppo is indeed using the suit patents, held by the plaintiff, Nokia has filed, with the plaint, 'Claim Mapping Charts', which purportedly maps each element of the claim to sections of the third generation partnership project (3GPP) technical specifications which form the basis of wireless telecommunications standards developed within the framework of the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI). As is well-known, a patent, to qualify as a SEP, has to map onto a standard set by the ETSI (or the relevant Standard Setting Organization/SSO). If the technology used by Oppo and the suit patents both map onto the same standard in the ETSI, it could lead to a legitimate inference that the defendants` technology infringes the plaintiff`s patents.

3. SEPs form a category of patent sui generis, as has been noted by this Court in its judgment in Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Xiaomi Corporation, (2021) 277 DLT 396, though SEP litigation, at least in this country, is governed by the same fundamental substantive and procedural principles that govern any other litigation. Unlike normal patents, the use, by another of a patent held by one party, does not, ipso facto, entitle the party, as a right, to an injunction restraining the other party from using the patent. This is because SEPs, by their very nature, constitute standards for operation of technologies which are required worldwide and form