You are on page 1of 59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

I
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014
In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

INDEX II

S.No Particulars Pages

1. Application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking
an ex-pa rte interim injunction along with -i,+-il
su_QQ_ortin_g_ affidavit
2. Application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order
39 Rule 7 read with section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking
appointment of a local commissioner/s along with
u-i'
su_QQ_Orti n_g_ affidavit
3. Application under section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking
exemption from filing of the original documents
lb·lf'
alon_g_ with su_QQ_ortin_g_ affidavit
4. Application under section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking ,,_. t,i
permission to file dim documents, vernacular
documents and documents with insufficient left
side mar:g_in along_ with suQQ_ortin_g_ affidavit
5. Application under section 149 read with section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of
the Plaintiffs seeking extension to file the requisite
~l-~J
court fee alon_g_ with suQQ_ortin_g_ affidavit
6. Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen under Section 656 of .
the Indian Evidence Act, 1876 in respect of the '
Internet Printouts being filed and relied upon by
the Plaintiffs
~'l,JJ

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014
New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

IA No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

. IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON
BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS SEEKING INTERIM INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

The above-named Plaintiffs most respectfully showeth:

1. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent

injunction against the Defendants seeking inter alia to restrain

violation and infringement of the Plaintiff No.l's right in

registered patent IN 200572 (hereinafter referred to as the suit

patent or IN '572) titled as "A method and a device for making

handover decision in a mobile communication system" along

with rendition of accounts, damages delivery up etc. The

Plaintiffs crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to rely upon the

averments set forth in the instant suit, the contents of which

are not completely repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

ABOUT THE PLAINTIFFS

2. That the Plaintiff No.1, Vringo !nfrastructure, Inc., is a company

incorporated under· the laws of State of Delaware, United States

of America with its principal place of business at 780 Third

Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10017. The Plaintiff
No.1, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vringo, Inc., i.e .

Plaintiff No.2 herein, was set up in 2012 and is currently

engaged in innovation and development of telecommunication

technologies and intellectual property. It is most respectfully

submitted that the Plaintiff No.l 's intellectual property portfolio

consists of more than 500 patents and patent applications

covering technologies pertaining to telecom infrastructure and

cellular communication . The Plaintiff No.1 also has exclusive

rights to certain cognitive radio technologies developed at

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia

Tech), in part, with a grant from the National Science

Foundation, a U.S. government scientific research-funding

agency. The Plaintiff No.1 is thus also engaged in research and

development related to cognitive radio technology.

3. That the Plaintiff No.2, Vringo, Inc., is a company incorporated

under the laws ·of the State of Delaware, United States of

America with its principal place of business at 780 Third

Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10017. The Plaintiff No. 2 was

a pioneer in the development of mobile 'applications and video

ringtone technology . It is most respectfully submitted that on

December 31, 2013, a definitive acquisition agreement was

signed between the Plaintiff No. 2 and InfoMedia Services Ltd.

in which InfoMedia agreed to acquire Plaintiff No. 2's mobile

partnerships and application business, and a portfolio of

internally developed patents related to those technologies. The

deal is expected to close on or about March 31, 2014. After the

closing, the Plaintiff No. 2 will acquire approximately an 8°/o
equity stake in InfoMedia and the Plaintiff No. 2's Chief

Executive Officer, Andrew Perlman, will join .InfoMedia's Board

of Directors.

4. That currently, the Plaintiff No.2 operates a global platform for

distribution of mobile social and video services. The said

Plaintiff was awarded the 'Global Telecom Business Wireless

Network Infrastructure Innovation Award' for launch of the

world's first Video Ringtone Service and was also chosen by

AlwaysOn as an 'On Media Top 100 Winners'. It was also given

the 'Sony Ericsson Special Recognition Award' as a winner for

best use of all functionality and the 'MIPCOM Mobile and

Internet Award' as a winner for 'Best Mobile Service for Social

Community and User Generated Products'.

5. That the Plaintiff No.2 is currently involved in the development

and distribution . of mobile products and services and will

continue to be so involved until the anticipated closing date.

The Plaintiff No.2 currently offers its social and video ringtone

applications globally through mobile application stores and

through mobile operators in India, The United Kingdom,

Malaysia and The United Arab Emirates. In India, the Plaintiff

No.2's products and services are available to Tata Decomo

customers as well as to users through the Nokia Download

Store, Google Play, and independent Android Mobile application

stores. The Plaintiff No.2 owns outright or through its

subsidiaries a significant patent portfolio related to mobile

applications, internet search and search advertising technology.
It is most respectfully submitted that the patents and the

patent applications which form part of both Plaintiffs' portfolios

have been either developed internally or have been acquired

from third parties.

THE SUIT PATENT: IN 200572

6. That an application bearing number 304/MAS/1997 for grant of

the suit patent was filed on 14.2.1997 seeking priority from the

Finnish Patent Application no. 960766 of 20.2.1996 originally

by Nokia Telecommunications OY (Finland). After subjecting the

claimed invention to the rigorous procedural requirements of

the Patent Act, 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) -

the suit patent was granted in favour of Nokia

Telecommunications OY (Finland) on 31.5.2006 by the Chennai

Patent Office. Thereafter, the patentee changed its name from

Nokia Telecommunications OY to Nokia Networks OY which

subsequently merged with Nokia OYJ (which is the Finnish

name of Nokia Corporation). By a Confidential Patent Purchase

Agreement dated 9th August, 2012, the Plaintiff no.2 (Vringo

Inc.) acquired from Nokia Corporation the various rights, title

and interests inter alia in the suit patent for the entire term of

the patent including rights that enure upon the patent prior to

the date of the agreement. Thereafter, by way of an intra-

group company agreement dated 10 September 2012, the

Plaintiff No.2 assigned the various rights, titles and interests

(as acquired from Nokia Corporation) inter alia in the suit

patent including right to sue for past infringement to the

Plaintiff No.1.
7. That both the aforesaid assignments have been confirmed and

duly recorded in India vide Deed of assignments dated

15.3.2013 and 12.4.2013 resp~ctively entered into between the

parties concerned pertaining exclusively to Indian patents and

. patent applications that were assigned by virtue of the Patent

Purchase Agreement and intra-group company agreement. It is

humbly submitted that applications for the recordal of the

aforementioned assignments dated 15.3.2013 and 12.4.2013

have been filed with the Chennai Patent Office and the same

has been duly recorded in the Register of Patents. Therefore,

the Plaintiff No.1 is at present the registered proprietor of IN

'572 and has the statutory right to prevent anyone from using

its patented invention without its authorization.

8. That the invention disclosed and claimed in IN '572 relates to a

method and a device for making a handover decision in a

mobile communication system comprising of at least one

microcell (A, B, C) the coverage area of which is at least mainly

located within the coverage area of another cell (M) as shown

herein below.

Fig 1 of the complete specification: Two layer radio
coverage in a mobile communication system
9. That in an exemplary embodiment of the suit patent for a GSM

mobile communication system, the handover decision is made

by a Base Station Controller (BSC) which interacts with and is

connected to a mobile services switching centre (MSC) and

base stations (BTS1 ... BTSM) as illustrated herein below:
BSC

MSC
BTS 1
..
BTS 2 41

Handover control
BTS M

Register 1 Counter 1
,_.J32
Register 2 ~---
Counter 2

Register M Counter M

Fia 4 of the complete specification: Block diagram of a
base · station controller imolementinq a preferred
embodiment of the handover decision according to the
invention

The base station controller (BSC) includes

i) a handover control unit ( 41) which controls the handover
procedure;

ii) counters ( 431-43M) which inter alia perform various
functions used in making a handover decision; and

iii) registers ( 42 1-42M) that are associated with each base
station and that contain pre-set parameters for their
respective base station. The parameters contained in the
registers include the threshold level 'T' of measurement
results and the threshold value N of a counter.

It is pertinent to state herein that the claimed invention is not

limited to the GSM embodiment exemplified herein above.
10. That the method of making a hand over decision, in an

exemplary embodiment, by the BSC in a GSM mobile

communication system as disclosed in the suit patent comprises

of:

a. Measuring at the mobile station a radio signal
transmitted by a base station of a microcell and
reporting the measurement result at substantially
regular intervals. The measurement result may
represent for instance the received power, bit error
ratio or a combination thereof. This signal
measurement result (MR) is then compared with a
threshold level 'T' which is pre-set in a Register. If the
measurement result rs less than or equal to the pre-
set threshold level (MR=:;T) then such measurement
result is classified as unacceptable which in turn
results in a decrement, by a pre-set decrement
amount, in the counter or value of relative speed;

b. If the measurement result is greater than the pre-set
threshold level (MR> T), then such measurement is
classified as acceptable which in-turn results in an
increment by pre-set incremental amount, in the
counter or value of relative speed;

c. The counter value is then compared with pre-set
threshold value 'N' obtained from a Register. When the
value of the counter exceeds the pre-set threshold
value 'N' - the mobile station is defined as slow moving
mobile station and it is preferably handed over to the
base station of a microcell thereby reducing the load
on the base station of a macrocell;

It is pertinent to state herein that the threshold level 'T' with

which the measurement results are compared and the threshold

counter value 'N' maybe set by the operator of the mobile

communication network and a separate threshold level 'T' or

threshold value 'N' maybe set for each base station and for

each microcell respectively. Further, the counter value never

becomes negative and the comparison of signal measurement

result with a threshold level pre-set in the Register, the

increment or decrement of the counter, the comparison of the
counter value with a pre-set threshold value are functions

performed by the counter. Thus, by way of the suit patent, the

load on the macrocell is reduced and unnecessary transfers are

prevented thereby improving the voice quality. Further, various

short-comings that were prevalent in the prior art (where

handover decision were based on a single measurement result)

have been over-come by monitoring the level and/or quality of

the base station signal received by a mobile station for a longer

time on the basis of which a mobile station is labeled as slow

moving or fast moving. The detailed embodiment and

background of the invention etc. along with the granted claims

are set out in detail in the Complete Specification and the same

is not reproduced herein to ensure brevity.

DEFENDANTS' INFRINGING ACTIVITIES:

11. That the Defendant No.1 is an online platform which hosts

various advertisements and offers for sale various products

including products which are manufactured/sold/imported by

the Defendant Nos.3&4 and which infringe the registered suit

patent of the Plaintiffs. Further, the Defendant No.3, ZTE

Telecom India Pvt. Ltd, is a private limited company

incorporated under the laws of India and is the wholly owned

subsidiary of the Defendant No.4, ZTE Corporation, a company

incorporated under the laws of the People's Republic of China .

The Defendant No.2 is the Chief Executive Officer of the

Defendant No.3. The said Defendant No.2 has been impleaded

as a party in the present proceedings on account of his principal
role and strategic control over the business of the Defendant

No.3 company in India.

12. That the Defendant No.4 is one of the largest manufacturers

and sellers of telecommunications equipment and devices such

as mobile handsets, dongles, tablets, infrastructure equipment

& devices, etc. The Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sell their devices

(including infrastructure equipment) in India to companies like

Tata Teleservices, Airtel, Sistema Shyam Teleservices, BSNL,

Reliance Communications, Aircel, Vodafone etc., and are also

involved in setting up of telecom infrastructure for various

telecom players across the country including the upkeep,

maintenance and servicing of such equipment. The Defendant

Nos. 3 and 4 thus:

a. Offer for sale infrastructure equipment including BSC
(which incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented technology)
in India;

b. Set up infrastructure equipment including BSC (which
incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented technology) for
various operators in India;

c. Offer servicing/maintenance of infrastructure
equipment including BSC (which incorporate the
Plaintiffs' patented technology) in India;

d. Take care of warranty related obligations of
infrastructure equipment including BSC (which
incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented technology) in
India;

e. Actively conduct business in India.

13. That the Defendants are infringing the suit patent of the

Plaintiff No.1 by

i. manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale
infrastructure equipment (including BSC) which are in direct
II
violation of the Plaintiff No.1 's statutory rights as covered by
claims 6, 7, 8 & 10 of IN '572;

ii setting up and operating of infrastructure equipment
(including BSC) for various service providers which function
as per the claims 1,2,3,4, 5 & 9;

Examples of such infringing BSCs which are being

manufactured, imported, installed, serviced etc. by the

Defendants are ZTE ZXGlO iBSC and ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2.

Detailed infringement analysis charts qua the aforesaid

infringir:ig BSCs pr.epared by the Plaintiffs along with an expert

affidavit establishing. the infringement of the suit patent by the

Defendants are being filed in the present proceedings. Further,

a perusal of ZTE's BSS feature list reveals that the infringing

method is being adopted by all of the BSCs being manufactured

by the Defendant No.4 for making a handover decision from a

macrocell to a microcell. Thus, the infringing BSCs enumerated

hereinabove are by way of an illustration and the Plaintiffs

reserve their rights to enlist names and details of any other

device (e.g., infrastructure equipment) found to be infringing in

nature subsequent to the commencement of the present legal

proceeding. It is pertinent to state herein that since the

Defendants' product literature provides details corresponding to

the technical teachings of the suit patent, hence at this stage

no test report is being filed to establish infringement of IN '572

by either ZTE ZXGlO iBSC or ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2. The said

product literature clearly establishes the infringement of the

suit patent. However, the Plaintiffs reserve their rights to file

testing or any other form of technical evidence if the need

arises in future especially if the Defendants dispute the said
'

documents (technical . literature) and the

technology/infringement thereof of the suit patent. Further, it

is pertinent to state herein that Nokia Corporation had

represented to the Plaintiff No.2 that the Defendant No.4 was

not and is not licensed for the suit patent.

14. That by vi'rtue of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 during the

life time and subsistence of the suit patent - the Plaintiff No.1 is

legally entitled to prevent any third party who does not have its

permission from making, using, offering for sale, selling or

importing for those purposes infringing products in India or

from operating infrastructure equipment as per the method

claimed under the suit patent. Thus, in order to prevent the

Defendants from infringing its rights in IN '572 the Plaintiff No.1

has instituted this suit for infringement of its patent and is filing

the present application seeking inter alia an ex-parte ad interim

injunction against the Defendants. It is most respectfully

submitted that the suit patent is valid and subsisting in nature

as annuities in respect of the same has been regularly paid.

Further, no pre-grant or post-grant opposition or revocation

petition in respect of the same has been filed.

15. That by way of their blatant acts of infringement, huge amount

of profits is being illegally earned by the Defendants. It is most

respectfully submitted that the Plaintiffs believe that till date

1750 units of the infringing BSCs have been sold by the

Defendants in India at a price of USO 85,000 approximately.

Thus, the Plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 17,85,00,000/- (Rupees
-
seventeen crores and eighty five lakhs only) as damages,

however, the same is a rough estimate as the Plaintiffs are not

privy to the exact sales figures, revenue details etc. as earned

by the Defendants due to their infringing activities. Thus, the
.
Defendants are liable to render sales accounts pertaining to all

the infringing infrastructure equipment which have been

imported, manufactured, sold, offered for sale, installed,

operated etc. by them since the date of publication of the suit

patent i.e. 29.7.2005. Further, the Plaintiffs reserve their rights

to claim additional damages as per sales revenue that may be

disclosed by the Defendants. The Defendant No.4 does not

have any office in India and hence a greater need to secure the

interest of the Plaintiffs arises.

16. That the Defendants ought not to be allowed to exploit the

Plaintiff No.l's patented technology without its approval and to

the prejudice of the said Plaintiff. Thus, the acts of the

Defendqnts of importing, manufacturing, marketing, selling,

installing and operating infringing devices (including

infrastructure equipment like BSCs) which use the patented

technology are liable to be injuncted by this Hon'ble Court

inasmuch as the Plaintiff No.1 's rights in the suit patent are

extremely valuable in nature.

17. That the suit patent was brought to the notice of the

Defendants vide letter dated 25th September 2012, a copy of

which is being filed in the present proceedings. However, the

Defendants did not approach the Plaintiffs seeking a license qua
the suit patent. Thus, the Plaintiffs have taken all reasonable

steps required to put the Defendants on notice. Further, the

Plaintiffs have instituted another suit being CS (OS) no. 2168 of

2013 against the Defendant Nos.2-4 with respect to IN 243980

which is a Standard Essential Patent related to

CDMA2000/CDMA2000 REV A/CDMA2000 REV B technology,

which is currently pendi~g before this Hon'ble Court. As the

patent, the technology and the infringing devices involved in

the present case are different, thus, the Plaintiffs are instituting

a separate suit against the Defendants qua IN '572. Details of

other legal proceedings pending inter .se between the parties in

other jurisdictions have been provided in the plaint and the

same are being relied upon.

18. That the manufacturing and selling of infringing goods violative

of suit patent is illegal and unlawful. Furthermore, the

importation of infringing infrastructure equipment. which

contains the patented technology as claimed and disclosed in

the suit patent, is also contrary to law. The same is prohibited

even under the Customs Laws. The authorities including the

Customs are bound to implement and enforce the Plaintiff

No. l's right in the suit patent in accordance with the relevant

laws. Insofar as the prayer (ii) made hereinafter is concerned,

the authorities referred to therein are not being impleaded as

parties since no relief is being prayed qua them but it is settled

law that the Court can in aid ~f an injunction direct non-parties

to aid and ensure compliance of orders. The requirement under

the relevant provisions of the Customs including that of grant of
r>
a patent and the associating of the patent's claims with the

Defendants' infringing equipments/devices, is established by

the expert affidavit being filed by the Plaintiffs with the present

proceeding. The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods)

Enforcement Rules, 2007 are in aid of protecting all intellectual

properties including Patents. Such Rules are in consonance of

the International Treaty obligations of India.

19. That in light of the fact that the Plaintiff no.1 has valid and

existing rights in the suit pate.nt, the prima facie case exists in

its favour. Further, as the Plaintiff no.1 has duly informed the

Defendants about its statutory rights in the suit patent and

their infringing activities - the balance of convenience also lies

in favour of Plaintiff no.1 as the Defendants with a view to

illegally earn profits are infringing the Plaintiff No.1 's right in

the suit patent. Also, irreparable harm and loss shall be caused

to the Plaintiffs if the Defendants are not injuncted from

infringing the Plaintiff No.l's right in the suit patent inasmuch

as the same shall result in violation of the Plaintiff's statutory

exclusive monopoly over the suit patent's subject matter

especially in the light of the fact that such an act of

infringement is being willfully, knowingly and deliberately done

by the Defendants.

PRAYER:

20. The Plaintiffs in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

most respectfully pray that the following relief(s) be granted in

its favour and against the Defendants:
i. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction order be passed in favour of

the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, their Officers,

Directors, Agents, Distributors and Customers restraining them

from manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale,

advertising (either directly or indirectly including through third

party websites), installing, operating and maintaining/servicing

any infringing devices such as infrastructure equipment

including ZXG10 iBSC & ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2 so as to result in

infringement of the Plaintiff No.1 's patent no. IN 200572.

ii. Approprtate directions be passed against the Customs

Authorities directing them that as and when any infringing

consignment is imported by the Defendant Nos.3&4 or their

importers or agents etc. - intimation thereof shall be given to

the Plaintiffs and objections, if any of the Plaintiffs thereto shall

be decided as per the provisions of the Intellectual Property

(Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.

iii. Appropriate directions be passed against the Defendant Nos.

3&4 for filing an affidavit of a director or other person, on

behalf of the said Defendants duly authorized by a specific

resolution of its Board of Directors, disclosing the following

information:

i) Quantum of the infringing infrastructure equipment
including ZXG10i BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2 sold by
them from 2005 till date;

ii) Revenue earned from the sale of the infringing
infrastructure equipment including ZXG10i BSC &
ZXG10-BSCV2 for the following financial years -
2005-06, 2006-07 I 207-08, 2008-09 f 2009-10,
2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 (till date);
ll
iv. Appropriate directions. be passed against the Defendant

Nos.3&4 for filing an affidavit of a director or other person, on

behalf of the said Defendants duly authorized by a specific

resolution of its Board of Directors, disclosing the. following

information on a quarterly basis during the pendency of the

suit:

i) Quantum of the infringing infrastructure equipment
including ZXG10i BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2 being
manufactured, imported, sold etc.;

ii) Revenue earned from the sale of the infringing
infrastructure equipment including ZXG10i BSC &
ZXG10-BSCV2 in India;

v. Any other order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the interest of justice of equity;

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
...-- - -

0

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 196 1)

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified l
5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142737

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Sandra J. Tallman
Special Deputy Secretary of State

Apostille (REV: 09125/ 12)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
I
I
I.A. No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. .. ... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vr.ingo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, .15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case~ I am authorized and competent to swear

and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my

counsels as per my instructions and the contents of the same

maybe read as part and parcel of the preseilt affidavit as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying application and I say

that the contents of the same are true and correct as per my
1-e.
~~~~t~f 1teNe~ 0Y~rk, ~ 4. ~.7J. . . . . .... . . .~~~·- -
1

} ss.: ....... .. ..
l, NORMAN GOO M/·N, C ounty Clerk and Cleric of the Supreme C o urt at the State al

N"' Yo•\;~'~~i~B~'.,~~~! o;u~•::~~~·: ;:~:,~ " <d, h·~~·~: ~f--~:=~~«: ~::
whose name is subscribed to • e nexed affiLJt,
time of taking the same a N RY PUBLIC in and fort
~fi ,
c rti6cate of acknowledgment or proof, w at thc O,,..,
t tc of New York duly commls$loncd, s om 1¢11 - '
qualified to act as such; that pursunn t to law, a commi s~ion r a certificate of his official chllractc wl\b\,'fi'I.\ ' i..'~
auto graph signature has been 6leJ in mv office; that at the time of taking such proof, acknowled~ men or o~tq(h.~ I 1'
wa,J duly authorized to take the same; that I am well acquainted with th e handwriting of &uch NOT A Y PbJ.~lC
or have compared the signature on the annexed Instru ment with his autograph signature deposlt-:d In y offi!e, and_,.,,,.
I believe that such signature is genuine. ~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hcreunro set my hand affixed my official seal this ~'[il
.· µ\'"~\
........_...............................JAN···2···1 . .............. ..
FEE PAID $3.00 lDN ~~----~
County Clt'Tk and Clerk of t Suf>"tm~ Court, New York County
I
1 own knowledge and as per information received and believed to

be true from the Plaintiff Companies.

DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
VERIFICATION

Verified at ~ }J\ v516. on this J_} day of January, 2014 that
the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.

DEPONENT
David L Cohen
S-to.-te.d New yor l . <; s, Chief Legal and IP Officer
Covrrty o~ Nt\V Yori:. · . Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
Swotn torrtL-th1s 17th
ao.y
rtf TcJ.'MJfAry Aol~

!<ltm~-~
SAM G. LEFFELL \ \
.*' '
Notaiy Public, State of New York
No. 01LE6283831
Qualifled In New York County
Commission Explree June 17, 2017
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

IA No. of 2014
In
CS(OS) NO. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 AND ORDER 39 RULE
7 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
1908 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS, FOR THE APPOINTMENT
OF LOCAL COMMISSIONER/S

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The Plaintiffs above named respectfully submits:

1. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent

injunction against the De~endants seeking inter alia to restrain

violation and infringement of the Plaintiff No.l's right in

registered patent IN 200572 (hereinafter referred to as the suit

patent or IN '572) titled as "A method and a device for making

handover decision in a mobile communication system" along

with rendition of accounts, damages delivery up etc. The

Plaintiffs crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to rely upon the

averments set forth in the instant suit, the contents of which

are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity .

2. That the Defendants are importing, manufacturing, marketing,

selling, installing, servicing and operating infringing devices

(including infrastructure equipment like BSCs - ZXGlOi BSC &

ZXG10-BSCV2) in violation of the Plaintiff no. l's right in the
- ...,.....

suit patent. It is most respectfully submitted that in order to

confirm the Defendants infringing activities, the Plaintiffs have

conducted necessary infringement analysis in respect of two of

Defendants' BSCs viz. ZXG10i BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2 whereupon

it was discovered that the Plaintiffs' apprehensions were correct

and that the Defendants were indeed infringing the suit patent.

3. That the present application is being filed seeking appointment

of local commissioners to visit and inspect the premises as

mentioned in paragraph l(a) of the prayer clause for the

purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the operation

(sales made, accounts details, import details, etc) being run by

the Defendant Nos.3&4 thus leading to infringement of the suit

patent. Further, a local commissioner is also required to be

appointed to visit the office of Director General of Foreign Trade

to ascertain the amount of infringing equipment/product being

imported into India by the Defendant Nos.3&4. The present

application is bonafide in nature.

PRAYER

In view of the submissions made hereinabove it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Appoint local commissioner/s to do any or all of the following
acts:

a. To visit the following premises of the Defendant Nos.3&4,
their agents, franchisees or any other premises including
those of service providers as may be required wherein the
Defendants are manufacturing, importing, offering for sale,
assembling and installing and servicing infrastructure
equipment (including ZXG10i BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2) that
infringe the suit patent so as to inspect and analyze the
infringing equipments/devices etc. Further, a technical
person from the Plaintiffs' side maybe permitted to
accompany the local commissioner so appointed.

i. ZTE Telecom India Private Limited
6th Floor, Tower Building No. 10
DLF Cyber City, Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana

ii. ZTE Telecom India Private Limited
Plot No. 15, Sector - 4
Manesar, Gurgaon - 122 001
Haryana

b. To go to the aforesaid premises of the Defendants as
enumerated at paragraph (a) and any other premises of
which the Local Commissioner/s may acquire knowledge and
make an inventory of the infringing products (Base Station
Controllers etc.), components, semi-assembled products
along with brochures, technical specifications, template offer
letters etc;

c. To go to the aforesaid premises of the Defendants as
enumerated at paragraph (a) and any other premises of
which the Local Commi.ssioner/s may acquire knowledge and
to inspect and review account books and obtain sales
records of various infringing equipment including ZXG10i
BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2 from the year 2005 onwards;

d. To take photographs of the premises so visited along with
infringing infrastructure equipment;

e. To procure brochures, specifications, offer letters etc.,
pertaining to infringing infrastructure equipment including.
ZXG10i BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2;
f. To break open locks in case of resistance and seek police
help if necessary;

2. Appoint local commissioner/s to visit the following Office of the
Director of Foreign Trade in order to inspect and take copies of
documents detailing the import of infringing infrastructure
equipment (including ZXGlOi BSC & ZXG10-BSCV2) into India by
the Defendant Nos. 3&4 so as to ascertain the damage/loss
being caused to the Plaintiffs;

i. Office of the Director General of f=oreign Trade,
Department of Commerce, Government of India, Room
008, H-Wing, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011.

3. Any further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the int erest of justice and equity.

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl : D/802/2007 & UPC 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 20 14
0

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961)

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142738

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Apostille (REV: 09/25/12)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. .. ... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of America.

The above-Aamed Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case. I am authorized and competent to swear

and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my

counsels as per my instructions and the contents of the same

maybe read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying application and I say

that the contents of the same are true and correct as per my
~':~':. ~1 07';J,;0f~,;, I"' 549 66
1, NORMAN GOODM/· N, County Clerk and Cleric of the Suprem e Court ot the State o1
~~ '°:'.:' '.
N1~w York, In and for t he County cw Yo rk, a Court of R~~n· having by law a seal,

;•~;;~;~::~:::~.:,c;:~:;': :, "·:~;;::'.Ii:~~.~~
time of taking the same a NOT A BLI C in and for the State of
qualitied to act as such; that pursuant to law, a commiHion or a cc i
,, .::.~:·~:~'.'. . .
tc of his official character, with his
autograph signature has been 6lcJ in mv office; that ac the time o f talc.in such proof, acknowled~mcnt or oath, he
was tlulv authorized to take the sarnc; thlt I nm well acquainted with the handwriting of such N O TARY PUBLI
or have compared the signature on the Qnnexed Instrument with his autograph signature deposited In my offic .-..---
1 believe that such signature is genuine.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, l have here unto set my hand affixed my official seal thb
• J
F~E·;·~i'o''$;J;O'''"''JAN· ..2···i··2a1~··~· .:·:·
County Cln'k and Cl"k oj t Suprtrr:~ C0tirt, N nu York COt1nly \I

---- -
own knowledge and as per information received and believed to

be true from the Plaintiff Companies .

~DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
VERIFICATION

Verified at 07; .}J\ LJ51.j\ on this Iq. day of January, 2014 that
the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.

DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.

SAM G. LEFFELL
Notary Publlo,·Slate of New York
No. 01LE62.83831
~ ·
Qualified In New York Countv
CaM1isSiOfl Explrel June 17, 2017

~N \
\
- 1
:) /
·):> /
..·..
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

IA No. of 2014
In
CS(OS) NO. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
SEEKING EXEMPTION TO FILE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

The above-named Plaintiffs most respectfully submit as

under:

1. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent

injunction against the Defendants seeking inter alia to

restrain violation and infringement of the Plaintiff No.1 's right

in registered patent IN 200572 (hereinafter referred to as the

suit patent or IN '572) titled as "A method and a device for

making handover decision in a mobile communication

·system" along with rendition of accounts, damages delivery

up etc. The Plaintiffs crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to

rely upon the averments set forth in the instant suit, the

\ contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

, 2. That in order to establish infringement of its statutory patent

rights in the above-mentioned suit patents - copies of certain

documents (manuals, assignments, agreements, internet
1J
print outs etc.) are being filed instead of filing the originals of

the same.

3. That the present application is being filed by the Plaintiffs

seeking exemption from this Hon'ble court to file copies of

documents (instead of the originals) on the ground that the

present suit is being filed on an urgent basis and it is not

possible to procure and file the originals of all the documents

being relied upon by the Plaintiffs.

4. That the present application is being filed by the Plaintiffs

with bonafide intention and the Plaintiffs undertake to file the

originals of the aforesaid documents at the earliest as and

when directed by this Hon'ble Court.

PRAYER

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most

respectfully submitted that:

a. The Plaintiffs be exempted from filing originals of all the
documents being relied upon by it;

b. Any other order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice of equity;

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014
New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
-------~- -

0

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961)

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

C~rtified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142739

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Sandra J. Ta llman
*! Special Deputy Secretary of State

Apostille (REV: 09/25/12)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs
'1

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case. I am authorized and competent to swear

and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my

counsels as per my instructions and the contents of the same

maybe read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying application and I say

that the contents of the same are true and correct as per my
State of New York
County of New Yorlc, } ss.:
~972 Forru l
own knowledge and as per information received and believed to

be true from the Plaintiff Companies .

DEPONENT
David L Coheri
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
VERIFICATION

Verified at .~J-..Y; lJf{j on this\ f day of January, 2014 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from .

DEPONENT

David L Cohen
St-o:t·e. of N4.wy0 t"K Chief Legal and IP Officer
: ~J :
Covrrly o t lVl.w yor k Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
S1MJtn ~ ~ i'hlS 17-tn
do.y of- JMiv4 ry ~ 11
fMfL61· tp-
SAM G. LEFFELL
NotarY Public, State of New York
No. 01LE~bxintv
co~::='~:, June 17, 2017
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

IA No. of 2014
In
CS(OS) NO. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ... .. Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE DIM DOCUMENTS,
VERNACULAR DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS WITH
INSUFFICIENT LEFT SIDE MARGIN

The above-named Plaintiffs most respectfully submit as under:

1. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for

permanent injunction against the Defendants seeking

inter alia to restrain violation and infringement of the

Plaintiff No.1 's right in registered patent IN 200572

(hereinafter referred to as the suit patent or IN '572)

titled as "A method and a device for making handover

decision in a mobile communication system" along with

rendition of accounts, damages delivery up etc. The

Plaintiffs crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to rely

upon the averments set forth in the instant suit, the

contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

2. That in order to establish infringement of its statutory

patent rights in the above-mentioned suit patents -
copies of certain documents (manuals, assignments,

agreements, internet print outs etc.) are being filed

which are dim and illegible in nature. Further, some of

these documents may not have sufficient left side

margin as per the Delhi High Court Rules or may be in

vernacular without their true translated copies. Also, the

expert affidavit and its annexures have been printed out

on A4 sized sheets with prints on both sides.

3. That the · present application is being filed by the

Plaintiffs seeking leave from this Hon'ble court to file dim

documents, vernacular documents and documents with

insufficient left side margin, prints on both sides or

improper size on the ground that the present suit is

being filed on ·an urgent basis and as such

typed/translated copies of all such documents could not

be procured as the same would be an extremely time

consuming exercise taking into account the volume of

such documents.

4. That the present application is being filed by the

Plaintiffs with bonafide intention and the Plaintiffs

undertakes to file true typed copies/clear/translated

copies of the aforesaid documents in legal size sheets at

the earliest as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most

respectfully submitted that:

a. The Plaintiffs be permitted to file dim ··

document s/vernacular documents/copies and documents

having insufficient left side margin;

b. The Plaintiffs be permitted to file the expert affidavit

along with its Annexures on A4 size sheet with prints on

both sides;

c. Any other order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice of equity;

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New.Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
0

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 196 1)

1. Country: .
United States of. America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142740

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Sandra J. Tallman
Special Deputy Secretary of State

Apostilie (REV: 09125/ 12)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. &~ Anr. .. ... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case. I am authorized and competent to swear

l 2.
and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

That the accompanying application has been drafted by my

counsels as per my instructions and the contents of the same

maybe read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying application and I say

that the contents of the same an~ true and correct as per my
FEE PAID $3.00

t Suprnnt CUMrl, Nno Yor• Counl1
own knowledge and as per information received and believed to

I be true from the Plaintiff Companies.

~
DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
VERIFICATION

Verified at ~'f;.Y'f uj/J, on this J.3_ day of January, 2014 that
the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.
v-
d- ·
DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
S-t~t"e o.f Ntw Yo< l Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
· SS·
Ca11rrty of N1.w Yorl · ·
Sworn -to Me.-+h1 s (7+~
~Y of Tanvary ~14'

k~.~
SAM G. LEFFELL
Notary Public, Slate of New York
No. 01LE6283831
Quallfled In New York County .-..-·· •"
Commission Expires June 17, t017
~ --

- ---

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

IA No. of 2014
In
CS(OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs .

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 149 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ON
BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS SEEKING EXTENSION TO
FILE REQUISITE COURT FEES

The above-named Plaintiffs most respectfully submit as under:

1. Th.at the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for

permanent injunction against the Defendants seeking

inter alia to restrain violation and infringement of the

Plaintiff No.1 's right in registered patent IN 200572 "

(hereinafter referred to as the suit patent or IN '572)

titled as "A method and a device for making handover

decision in a mobile communication system" along with

rendition of accounts, damages delivery up etc. The

Plaintiffs crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to rely

upon the averments set forth in the instant suit, the

contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

2. That the Plaintiffs have valued the present suit currently

at Rs. 17,85,00,400/- (Rupees seventeen crores eighty
five lakhs and four hundred only) on which court fees of

Rs.17,44,544/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs forty four

thousand five hundred and forty four only) is payable.

3. That the Plaintiffs have already undertaken the

necessary steps to obtain the court fee and the same

shall be deposited within two weeks ' time.

PRAYER

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the

Plaintiff most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to: -

a. Grant two weeks' time for filing of requisite court fees of

Rs.17 ,44,544/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs forty four

thousand five hundred and forty four only);

b. Pass such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of justice and equity;

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/ 10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961)

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

l
1
8. No. NYC-142741

' l
_J
9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Sandra J. Tallman
*! Special Deputy Secretary of State

~!

Apostille (REV: 09/25/12)
~~,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

I.A. No. of 2014
In
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Pia i ntiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of: America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case. I am authorized and competent to swear

and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my

counsels as per my instructions and the contents of the same

maybe read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the

same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying application and I say

that the contents of the same are true and correct as per my
_.,.,,..

\

.'
~· .
own knowledge and as per information received and believed to

be true from the Plaintiff Companies.

DEPONENT
David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.
VERIFICATION

Verified at Ph ~ usA on this \ =y day of January, 2014 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.

DEPONENT

S-to.;-e. at t'JOJ York : 5 5 : David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer·
County at Ntw York. Vringo Inc.
5'1JO r f' ;-,, ~-fl, JS l 7th Vringo Infrastructure Inc.

<1-y J Tarw().ry ~o/4;
J~Gi-~ ·~

\ \,,
SAM G. LEFFElL '1
.1
Notary PUbllc, State of New YOfk ) ('·t .I
No. 01LE6283831 (' J
Qualified In New York Countv
Commission expires June 17, 2017
.. .
~:· J ·1

,.. /
-----
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
~1
CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. DAVID L COHEN UNDER SECTION
65B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1876 IN RESPECT
OF THE INTERNET PRINT OUTS BEING FILED AND
RELIED UPON BY THE PLAINTIFFS

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged

about 42 years, working at Vringo Inc., having its principle

place of business at 407 E. Methvin St., Longview, Texas

75601, United States of America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and

declare as under:

1. That I am the Chief Legal and IP Officer of Vringo Inc . .

(Plaintiff no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts

and circumstance of the present case. I am authorized

and competent to swear and depose the present

affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. I say that the following documents have been filed by

the Plaintiff in the present suit which are all true print

outs of from the various websites:

i. Print out of the online status of IN 200572 as is
uploaded on the Indian Patent Office website;

ii. A copy of e-Register of IN 200572 as uploaded on "
the Patent Office website;
iii. Printouts from http:// trade.indiamart.com ;

iv. Printouts of the linkedin profile of Mr. Asish ·
Pattanayak as downloaded from
http://in.linkedin.com/;

v. Printouts of the linkedin profile of Mr. Sum it
Ghosh as downloaded from
http ://in.linkedin.com/;

vi. A copy of resume of Mr. Anjan Kumar Behera as
downloaded from http://www.3gwirelessjobs.com

vii. Internet Printout from website of Defendant No.4,
explaining the applications of ZXGlO;

viii. Printout of Resume of Mr. Balak Dhiman as
downloaded from www.indeed.com;

ix. Internet Printout from the website
www.zauba .com detailing import of ZTE iBSC in
India;

x. Printout of the relevant portion of 'Telecom
Authority of India - Annual Report for the year
2011-12 ' from http://www.trai.gov.in.

3. I say that all the aforesaid documents (website print

outs) are accurate and their contents have not been

altered in any manner whatsoever. The computer

printouts of the abovementioned documents are an

exact replica of the information as conta ined on the

various official websites from which the same have been

procured .

4. I say that I have taken the print outs of the aforesaid

documents and that the computer system and the

printer used for the purpose of taking the print outs are

in good working condition and order and the internet is

regularly accessed from the said computer system.
··- - . = . = - .. -

-
~---

-

(Convention ~e La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961)

1. Countrv: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142749

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Sandra J. Tallman
Special Deputy Secretary of State

Apostille (REV: 09/25/12)
--

FEE PAID $3.00

JAN 2 1 7.01~
CoU11ty CIN"k a~ CltTk of
I.
I say that in view of the facts and circumstances

mentioned above, the print outs of the various

documents which have been filed by the Plaintiffs are

liable to be taken on record for the purpose of

admission/denial of documents and in respect of the

ongoing legal proceedings.

DEPONENT

David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.

VERIFICATION

Verified at 1'.>~ fJ'T USlA
--"'+--------- on this I I day of

January, 2014 that the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom.

S-l-crie, ot f\kw York. ss , DEPONENT
Coun-ty of tJtN yor K . ·
David L Cohen
s~orn tu mt.+h1s 17-rh Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
cb_y af- JM ta ry ;l.ci 14 Vringo Infrastr~Inc.

_/Mr;, ti. 7Jtd \\\
I () ()
r-
"1
:::{]
c
0
"°;>'
;
i
SAM G. LEFFEU. 7t .:'.:i l
Notary Publtc, State of New York --<
No. 01 LE6283831
Quallfied In New York County
Commission expires June 17, 2017
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

INDEX III

S.No Particulars P~ges
1. List of Reliance
2-
2. Vakalatnama
1-·'

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors.
.... Defendants

LIST OF RELIANCE

s. Particulars Pages
No
1. All such documents by virtue of which it is
established that all the rights in the Patent IN
200572 vest with the Plaintiff No.1 along with
documents pertaining to the subject matter,
validity etc of the aforesaid patent.

2. All such documents which establish
infringement on part of the Defendants qua
the suit patents IN 200572.

3. Any other document reliance on which maybe
necessary for the proper determination of
issues involved in the present case

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar
Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure Inc & Anr .......... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. ....... Defendants

KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that I, David L Cohen,
Authorised Signatory of Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New
York, NY 10017, United States of America above named Plaintiff no.1 do
hereby appoint

BITIKA SHARMA (D/1182/2004), SUDEEP CHATIERJEE (D/298/2005),
TEJVEER SINGH BHATIA ((D/2063/2005), SAYA CHOUDHARY
KAPUR(D/802/2007), ARCHANA SAHADEVA (D/1905/2007), UJJWALA J.
JEREMIAH (UK-585/2009), ANUSUYA MEHROTRA (D/2212/2010), KARAN
BAJAJ (D/4029/2010), ASHUTOSH KUMAR (UP-08488/10), VARUN KUMAR
TIKMANI (D/826/2011), SUHASINI RAINA (D/2982/2011), ARJUN
MUKHERJEE (D/498/12), RADHIKA CHOPRA (D/773/12), DEEPTHI
ALEXANDER (D/2529/2013), KAPIL MIDHA (D/1698/2013), B. PRASHANT
KUMAR (D/881/2013) all advocates of

SINGH & SINGH, LAW FIRM LLP
F-11, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi.-110014

(hereinafter called the advocates) to be my/our Advocate(s) in the above-
noted case and Authorise them: -

To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in
any other Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the
appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fees separately
for each court by me/us.

To sign, File, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or
petitions/ applications for execution, review, revision, withdrawal,
compromise or other petitions/ applications or affidavits or other documents
as may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case
in all its stages.

To file and take back documents to admit and/or deny the documents
of opposite party.

To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any
differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case upon instructions from us.

To take execution proceedings.

To deposit, draw and receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts
thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be
done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
~~·--

And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all
acts done by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/ our own
~
acts, as if done by me/us to all intents and purposes.

And I/we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case. The adjournment costs
whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall
receive and retain himself.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/we do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents
the contents of which have been understood by me/us on this j_J_ day of
o®U°'"O /
2014

Identified Signature of Mr. David L Cohen.
IV'

~~~1Miµ,,J!ftV!Jli{I
'{jef~~~~ J'!fll ~(Joo;
'?<~-11, Jangpura Ex~n~n
~&tJ
':..~'Y,.;O:.
(\ David ~~~~~~
'?'~ New Delhi 't: / - ~ . Chief Legal and IP Officer
',(f Ph: 91-11-24314741 .~ ~) Vringo Inc.
~ Fax: 91-11-24312895 ~~ 1 Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.
singhandsingh@vsnl.com

~~
S-t-ate of New Yc. rk
Co1.1nty .o.f New yor/c :ss:
S~rn To tl1l fh15 f1f+i
Jay ot$nvary ~ol 1
k4.tj!)
SAM G. LEFFELL
Notary Publlc,.Slate of New Yolk
No. 01LE6283831
Quallfled tn New York County
Commission expires June 17, 2017

..
- .;---
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:
Vringo Infrastructure Inc & Anr .......... Plaintiffs

VERSUS
lndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. ....... Defendants

KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that I, David L Cohen,
Authorised Signatory of Vringo Infrastructure Inc. at 780, Third Avenue,
15th Floor, New York, NY 10017, United States of America above named
Plaintiff no. l do hereby appoint

BITIKA SHARMA (D/1182/2004), SUDEEP CHATIERJEE (D/298/2005),
TEJVEER SINGH BHATIA ((D/2063/2005), SAYA CHOUDHARY
KAPUR(D/802/2007), ARCHANA SAHADEVA (D/1905/2007), UJJWALA J.
JEREMIAH (UK-585/2009), ANUSUYA MEHROTRA (D/2212/2010), KARAN
BAJAJ (D/4029/2010), ASHUTOSH KUMAR (UP-08488/10), VARUN KUMAR
TIKMANI (D/826/2011), SUHASINI RAINA (D/2982/2011), ARJUN
MUKHERJEE (D/498/12), RADHIKA CHOPRA (D/773/12), DEEPTHI
ALEXANDER (D/2529/2013), KAPIL MIDHA (D/1698/2013), B. PRASHANT
KUMAR (D/881/2013) all advocates of

SINGH & SINGH, LAW FIRM LLP
F-1 1, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi.-110014

(hereinafter called the advocates) to be my/our Advocate(s) in the above-
noted case and Authorise them:-

To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in
any other Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the
appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fees separately
for each court by me/us.

To sign, File, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or
petitions/ applications for execution, review, revision, withdrawal,
compromise or other petitions/ applications or affidavits or other documents
as may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case
in all its stages.

To file and take back documents to admit and/or deny the documents
of opposite party.

To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any
differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to
the said case upon instructions from us.

To take execution proceedings.

To deposit, draw and receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts
thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be
done for· the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
And I/we the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all
acts done by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/ our own
acts, as if done by me/us to all intents and purposes.

And I/we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his
substitute responsible for the result of the said case. The adjournment costs
whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall
receive and retain himself.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/we do hereunto set my/our hand to these presents
the contents of which have been understood by me/us on this El_ day of
January, 2014

l:;ed Signature. of :r. David f;.

1
~

~~Jif~~Arlv~c'f.#./J
Y ~£~k P/!'~r" W11-~
1 '~s
CLIENT
~ F-11, Jangpura Extension ~~ ~ David L Cohen
New Delhi - .cJ.,}) Chief Legal and IP Officer
Ph: 91-11-24314741 #' Vringo Inc.
Fax: 91-11-24312895 ~ Ai Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.
Si nghandsingh@vsnl.com .'vw~

Sto.te. of r'-kw Y6r K:S'S ~
Couf\~ ot NwJ Y~rk
5.wrn T11 r11ii-'1fi1s {71+)
do.y dJO.nw.fl; tori
k0.tp