IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5741/2013 M/S SARAL COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Meet Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr Vaibhav Gaggar, Mr Aaditya Vijay Kumar, Ms Garima Malhotra and Ms Pallak Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Jatan Singh and Mr Roshan Lal Goel, Advocates for UOI Mr Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr Anil Dutt and Mr Adarsh Ramanujan, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R 07.11.2013 W.P.(C) 5741/2013 Respondent no.4 has filed a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 as well as respondent nos.2 and 3 shall file their counter affidavits within four weeks. The petitioner may file the rejoinder affidavits thereto, within two weeks thereafter. Renotify on 21.01.2014. CM No. 12696/2013 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=214864&yr=20131 of 3 17-03-2014 11:02
with regard to the interim order that may be passed in the present case. The goods in question have been detained by the Customs Authority on the registration of a notice by respondent no.4 who is the right-holder and has alleged that the goods in question, imported by the petitioner, infringe the patent rights of respondent no.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents have agreed that the goods may be released to the petitioner, on the petitioner paying the licence fee as indicated in the e-mail dated 18.10.2013 from one Mr Harish Sharma of respondent no.4 and Mr Sundeep Grover of the petitioner. To be clear, in that e-mail the rate of royalty for granting a licence has been indicated as under:- 1. For GSM devices @ 0.75% of the sale price. 2. For GPRS + GSM devices @ .80% of the sale price. 3. For EDGE + GPRS + GSM devices @ .90% of the sale price. 4. For 3G devices @ 1.2 % of the sale price. The learned counsel for respondent no.4 has submitted that this communication indicating the aforesaid rates of royalty had been issued by a mistake and that the rate of royalty would actually be as under:- 1. For GSM devices @ 1.25% of the sale price. 2. For GPRS + GSM devices @ 1.75% of the sale price. 3. For EDGE + GPRS + GSM devices @ 2% of the sale price. 4. For 3G @ 2% of the sale price. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the statement, of the learned counsel for respondent no.4, that the said e-mail was issued under mistake. Anyhow, to cut short the controversy, it has been agreed by respondent no.1 and respondent no.4 that the petitioner shall pay royalty to respondent no.4 at the rates indicated in the e-mail dated 18.10.2013. The difference between the rates indicated there and the rates now claimed by respondent no.4 would be secured by a bank guarantee, to be furnished by the petitioner, in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, on or before 12.11.2013. It is also agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent no.4 that the above arrangement would not apply to goods which have already been admitted, by the learned counsel for respondent no.4, to be non-infringing. On furnishing of the aforesaid bank guarantee and the payment of the amount as indicated above, the allegedly infringing goods would be
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=214864&yr=20132 of 3 17-03-2014 11:02