IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  CS(OS) 314/2014
  
  VRINGO INFRASTRUCTURE, INC and ANR ..... Plaintiffs
  
  Through: Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Senior Advocate
  
  with Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur,
  
  Mr. Ashutosh Kumar and Mr. B. Prashant
  
  Kumar, Advocates.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD and ORS ..... Defendants
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   03.02.2014
  
  I.A. No.2114/2014 (for exemption)
  
  1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from
  filing original documents.
  
  2. The photocopies of the documents are stated to have been filed.
  
  3. Having regard to the averments made in the application, exemption
  is granted from filing the original documents; however, the same shall be
  produced by the plaintiffs at the time of admission/denial of the
  documents.
  
  4. The application stands disposed of.
  
  I.A. No.2115/2014 (for exemption)
  
  1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking enlargement of
  time for filing dim, clear, translated and vernacular documents and
  documents with insufficient left margin.
  
  2. Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified within
  a period of eight weeks from today.
  
  3. The application stands disposed of.
  
  I.A. No.2116/2014
  
  1. This is an application under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC
  seeking enlargement of time for payment of court fees of Rs.17,44,544/-.
  
  2. I have heard the learned senior counsel on the application.
  
  3. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, two weeks?
  time is granted to deposit the court fees.
  
  4. The application stands disposed of.
  
  C.S. (OS) No.314/2014
  
  1. Fresh plaint presented. It be checked and registered as a suit.
  
  2. Issue summons in the suit to the defendants through ordinary
  process, registered A.D. post, courier and e-mail. Summons must indicate
  that the defendants are required to file written statement within 30 days
  along with original documents from the date of service. Replication be
  filed within two weeks from the date of service of written statement.
  
  3. List before the learned Joint Registrar for admission/denial of
  documents on 15th May, 2014.
  
  I.A. No.2112/2014
  
  1. This is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section
  151 CPC.
  
  2. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable for 3rd March, 2014.
  
  3. Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, the learned senior counsel for the
  plaintiffs has contended that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs
  for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringement
  of their registered patent No.200572 titled as ?A method and a device for
  making a handover decision in a mobile communication system? as well as
  for rendition of accounts and damages, etc.
  
  4. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is a company
  incorporated under the laws of State of Delaware, United States of
  America having its principal office at New York. The plaintiff No.1 is a
  wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff No.2 which was set up in the year
  2012 and is stated to be engaged in innovation and development of
  telecommunication technologies and intellectual property. It has been
  averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 has intellectual property
  portfolio consisting of more than 500 patents and patent applications
  covering various technologies pertaining to telecom infrastructure and
  cellular communication.
  
  5. In the instant case, it is alleged that the plaintiffs have a
  patented technology in patent No.200572 which is a method and device for
  making a handover decision in a mobile communication system which is a
  fast moving receiver set/mobile phone. In this regard, the learned
  senior counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the complete
  specification which have been patented and copy of which is attached at
  page No.10 of the paper book (document file). Attention of the court has
  been drawn to the relevant clause 5 and 30 which in the literature reads
  as under :-
  
  ?5. The invention relates to a method and a device for making a
  handover decision in a mobile communication system comprising at least
  one microcell the coverage area of which is at least mainly located
  within the coverage area of another cell. The method comprises measuring
  at a mobile station a radio signal transmitted by a base station of a
  microcell, and reporting the measurement results at substantially regular
  intervals, and commanding mobile stations defined as slow moving mobile
  stations to switch to the base station of a suitable microcell.
  
  
  
  BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
  
  
  
  30. The object of the present invention is to obviate the above
  described problems caused in mobile communication networks of overlapping
  cell coverage when a handover decision is made on the basis of the speed
  of the mobile station.
  
  
  
  The new way of making a handover decision in a mobile communication
  system of multilayer radio coverage is achieved with a method of the
  invention, which is characterized by comprising determining a relative
  speed for the mobile station on the basis of the number and
  classification of the measurement results received at substantially
  regular intervals, and defining a mobile station (MS) as a slow moving
  mobile station, when the determined relative speed of said mobile station
  is lower than a predetermined relative speed.
  
  
  
  The invention is based on the idea of determining when a mobile station
  has remained in the area of a microcell for a sufficiently long time -
  either continuously or in several periods ? on the basis of the
  measurement results of a base station.?
  
  
  
  
  
  6. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel with reference
  to the pictorial depiction at page 25 of the documents file as to how the
  mobile receiver set, when it moves at a fast pace, shifts from one
  cellular tower to another cellular tower on the basis of this invention
  and thereby increasing the availability of band width to the receiver set
  in order to ensure that there is no snapping of communication between the
  receiver set and the recipient of the communication. It is also
  contended by the learned senior counsel that this patented invention also
  maintains the same level of clarity and the sound quality whether a
  mobile receiver is moving along with the mobile set in comparison to a
  person who remains stationed at a given fixed place for number of hours.
  
  7. The learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the court to
  the claim chart of defendant Nos.2 to 4 to contend that this very system
  is being manufactured, imported, sold and displayed by defendant Nos.2 to
  4 through their agent, who is defendant No.1 by giving the name of a
  multi-layer cell structure bearing No.ZXG10i BSC and ZXG10-BSCV2. It is
  contended that as and when the plaintiffs, who are the assignees of this
  patent from Nokia (the original owner of the technology and which has
  assigned the same to the plaintiffs), learnt about this infringement of
  their patented technology by the defendants, they gave a notice to
  defendant Nos.3 and 4 attaching therewith the details of various patented
  inventions including the present patent in favour of defendant Nos.3 and
  4 requiring them to desist from infringing the patented technology to the
  detriment of plaintiffs either by manufacturing, selling, displaying,
  importing in India but it is contended that no reply to the said notice
  was ever received. It has been further contended that the plaintiffs
  have learnt that in the past also, they have imported similar cellular
  mobile units with the same specification number in India and, therefore,
  by way of ex parte ad interim injunction, the defendants be restrained
  from importing the same and selling the said units in India through
  defendant No.1.
  
  8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
  senior counsel for the plaintiffs. I am satisfied that, prima facie,
  defendant Nos.3 and 4 are infringing the patented invention of the
  plaintiffs patent number ?IN 200572?, which relates to a method and a
  device for making a handover decision in a mobile communication system,
  by using the said technology and invention as their own by giving it a
  different terminology, i.e., ZTE ZXG10 iBSC and ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2. I am
  also satisfied that the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss in
  case restraint is not put on defendant Nos.3 and 4 from importing through
  defendant No.1 and selling the same to the Indian customers. The balance
  of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs.
  
  
  9. Accordingly, the defendants, their officers, directors, agents, distributors and customers are restrained from importing, selling,
  offering for sale, advertising, installing, operating any infringing
  devices such as the multi-layer cell structure bearing No.ZXG10i BSC and
  ZXG10-BSCV2 from China to India and if already imported, the same shall
  not be released by the custom authorities at any port of disembarkation
  or at any airport if received by air, without giving a notice in writing
  to the plaintiffs so as to permit them to inspect the said units as to
  whether the defendants are infringing the patented technology of the
  plaintiffs. Ordered accordingly.
  
  10. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied with within one week
  from today.
  
  
  
  I.A. No.2113/2014
  
  1. This is an application under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 39 Rule 7
  read with Section 151 CPC seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for
  the purpose of visiting the office of defendant Nos.3 and 4.
  
  2. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Since the
  plaintiff?s application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151
  CPC has been allowed partly and the defendants have been restrained from
  importing, selling, displaying, offering for sale, advertising,
  installing, operating any infringing devices bearing No.ZXG10i BSC and
  ZXG10-BSCV2, the court feels that the said order would be incomplete in
  case local commissioners are not appointed and inspection of the offices
  of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not conducted in order to see the quantum of
  offending articles having been imported by them and to obtain the
  necessary ancillary details of the same. I, accordingly, allow the
  application of the plaintiffs for appointment of local commissioners, who
  shall visit the two offices of the defendant Nos.3 and 4.
  
  
  
  3. Accordingly, I appoint Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate (Mobile
  No.9818131566) and Ms. Cauveri Birbal, Advocate (Mobile No.9810017683) as
  local commissioners to visit the premises of defendant Nos.3 and 4 at ZTE
  Telecom India Private Limited, 6th Floor, Tower Building No.10, DLF Cyber
  City, Phase-II, Gurgaon-1222002, Haryana; and ZTE Telecom India Private
  Limited, Plot No.15, Sector-4, Manesar, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana
  respectively.
  
  4. The local commissioners shall inspect and analyse the infringing
  equipment/device with the help of technical persons, who may be provided
  by the plaintiffs. The local commissioners shall prepare an inventory of
  the infringing products, components, semi-assembled products along with
  brochures, technical specifications and template offer letters, etc. The
  local commissioners shall also inspect the books of accounts and obtain
  sales records of various infringing equipment including ZXG10i BSC and
  ZXG10-BSCV2 from the year 2005 onwards. In case, the local commissioners
  are resisted by defendant Nos.3 and 4, they are at liberty to seek
  necessary police assistance in order to effectuate this order and furnish
  the report. The fees of the Local Commissioners is tentatively fixed at
  Rs.80,000/- each apart from other out of pocket expenses. The entire
  fees, in the first instance, shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
  
  5. The application stands disposed of.
  
  6. A copy of the order be sent to the learned local commissioners and
  be also given dasti to the parties.
  
  
  
  
  
   V.K. SHALI, J.
  
  FEBRUARY 03, 2014
  
  ?AA?
  
  
  
  $ 41