InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 151

Provisions considered: Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit for infringement of standard essential patents.

Brief facts

InterDigital sued Xiaomi in Delhi for infringing Indian patents essential to mobile telecommunications standards after licensing talks failed. Xiaomi responded by obtaining an anti-suit injunction from a Chinese court restraining InterDigital from pursuing or enforcing any injunction against Xiaomi anywhere in the world, including India, on pain of a daily penalty. InterDigital then applied to the Delhi High Court for an order restraining Xiaomi from enforcing that foreign anti-suit injunction against the Indian proceedings.

Issues before the Court

1. Does an Indian court have jurisdiction to restrain a party from enforcing a foreign anti-suit injunction that frustrates Indian proceedings?
2. Is a global rate-setting suit in a foreign forum a valid basis to injunct patent infringement proceedings in India?

Court's findings

The Court held that comity of courts is a mutual obligation and cannot be invoked by a foreign court to extinguish a domestic court's jurisdiction over infringement of patents granted by India within its own territory. It found the foreign anti-suit injunction, directed at restraining Indian proceedings under threat of a daily monetary penalty, to be oppressive and vexatious because it left the plaintiff no practical means to protect its Indian patent rights.

The Court distinguished a suit for infringement of India-granted patents from a global rate-setting exercise, holding that the two are not the same cause of action and that the pendency of the latter abroad does not oust the maintainability of the former in India.

The Court structured its order so that if Xiaomi nonetheless complied with the foreign direction or paid any penalty under it, Xiaomi would be liable to deposit an equivalent sum with the Delhi High Court, so as to neutralise the coercive effect of the foreign order on the Indian litigation.

Decision

Xiaomi was restrained from enforcing the foreign anti-suit injunction against InterDigital's Indian proceedings, with a matching deposit obligation if it complied with that injunction regardless.

Cases cited

• Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction Comity Of Courts Cross-Border Litigation FRAND Standard Essential Patent