Customise Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyse the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customised advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyse the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Xiaomi Infringement Case – an overprotection?

Ericsson, a Swedish MNC, got an ex parte interim order from the Delhi High Court against Xiaomi in a case involving infringement of patents relating to AMR technology, 2G and 3G technologies. It is interesting to note that Ericsson had in the past sued Micromax, Gionee, and Intex and did not succeed against Intex but the other two companies. While this being the case, there is also a complaint pending before the competition commission of india (CCI) for alleged unfair trade practices in patents by Ericsson. The injunction now prohibits Xiaomi and its e-tailer Flipkart, which has also been implicated in this case, from selling, advertising, manufacturing or importing the devices that infringe these patents. Also, directions were issued to...

Read More ›