IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 68/2012
  
  TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ..... Plaintiff
  
  Through Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Dutt
  and Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Advocate
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  KINGTECH EELCTRONICS
  
  (INDIA) and ORS ..... Defendants
  
  Through Mr. Hari Shankar and Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocate for D-1.
  
  Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for D-2 and 3 (customs).
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
  
   O R D E R
  
   22.08.2013
  
  IA No. 497/2012 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
  
  This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking ex parte ad
  interim order restraining defendant No. 1, its directors, promoters, etc.
  from using selling, offering for sell, etc any mobile phone that
  incorporates AMR Speech Codec Technology.
  
  Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has pointed out that the
  plaintiff is the proprietor of Indian patents Nos. 203036, 203034,
  203686, 213723 and 234157 which have been duly granted by the Controller
  of Patents, Mumbai and are duly valid and subsisting on the Register of
  Patents. It is stated that the aforesaid inventions are related to the
  manner in which Global System of Mobile Communications (GSM) mobile
  operates in a GSM network and comprise the process of apparatus that need
  to be employed by GSM mobile phone to use Adaptive Multi Rate (AMR)
  Speech Codec which represents most advanced and latest technology in the
  telecom industries. It is submitted that the defendant No. 1 has been
  regularly importing mobile phones using this AMR Speech Codec Technology
  which is in complete violation of the patent rights of the plaintiff. It
  is further submitted that in the written statement that was filed by the
  defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 has not taken a defence that its phones
  do not use AMR Speech Codec Technology.
  
  After the arguments have been heard and judgment has been reserved,
  learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 1, on instructions, submits
  that his client undertakes to this Court not to import mobile phones
  which incorporate AMR Speech Codec Technology. The authorised
  representative/director of defendant No. 1 Company will file an affidavit
  to the said effect stating that defendant No. 1 will not import any
  mobile phone using AMR Speech Codec Technology within 10 days.
  
  The directions in order dated 29.01.2013 in para 3 reads as follows:
  
  ?The counsel for the defendants No. 2 and 3 states that as and when any
  consignment is imported by the defendant No. 1, intimation thereof shall
  be given to the plaintiff and objections, if any, of the plaintiff
  thereto shall be entertained.?
  
  
  
  The above directions shall continue to bind defendants No. 2 and 3
  till the pendency of the present suit.
  
  The present application stands disposed of.
  
  CS(OS) No. 68/2012
  
  List before the Joint Registrar on 29.10.2013 for carrying out
  admission/denial of documents.
  
  Parties are at liberty to file additional documents before the next
  date.
  
  
  
  JAYANT NATH, J
  
  AUGUST 22, 2013/rb
  
  
  
  $ A21