IP Intelligence › Case Explainers › India’s first full standard-essential patent trial
Case in 90 seconds
India’s first full standard-essential patent trial
Delhi High Court · 2024 · 2024:DHC:2698, decided 28 March 2024
What happened
Cross-suits between a handset maker and a standard-essential patent holder over eight patents relating to AMR, EDGE and 3G standards, tried to judgment rather than settled.
What the fight was about
Validity of the suit patents, whether implementing the standard infringed them, whether the licensing offer was FRAND-compliant, and what damages should follow.
What the court decided
Seven of the eight patents were upheld as valid; one was revoked for lack of novelty on the defendant's counterclaim. The blanket section 3(k) attack failed - inventions incorporating algorithms within functional systems may be patented where they produce technical effects. Infringement was assessed by a two-step mapping: claims to the standard, then the impugned product to the standard. Exhaustion and waiver defences were rejected. The patentee's offer was held FRAND-compliant and the implementer was characterised as an unwilling licensee engaged in hold-out; royalty-stacking and hold-up arguments were rejected. Damages were awarded at a royalty of 1.05% of net selling price for the relevant period, with interest.
Why an inventor should care
Implementing a standard is not a defence. If a patent is essential to the standard, building to the standard means practising it.
What a patent professional should take from it
The judgment also sets out a structured framework for novelty analysis. For engineering teams, the practical consequence is that declared-essential patents belong in the product plan, not only in the legal file.
Standards compliance is not a licence. It is the reason you need one.
Find this judgment in our case law database ›
Reports of this decision circulate with the parties in either order because they were cross-suits. Cite the case number and neutral citation rather than the party names alone.
This is an editorial case note prepared by Ragulika IP - a summary of a decision, not the text of the judgment, and not authority. Read the judgment itself before relying on any point.
Sources & further reading
Related
Infringement
Doing, without the patentee's permission and in the country where the patent is in force, something the patentee has the exclusive right to do - making, using, offer…
Section 3(k)
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme **per se**, and algorithms from being inventions.
Not sure whether this applies to your invention?
The honest answer usually needs someone to look at your actual disclosure, your timeline and the prior art. That is a conversation, not an article.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.