Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd.

Brief facts

Ericsson sued Lava for infringement of standard-essential patents used in mobile telecommunication standards, and Lava filed its own suit and a counterclaim against Ericsson. After trial, the suits were decided together.

Issues before the Court

1. Whether the suit patents were valid and infringed by Lava's devices.
2. Whether Lava was an unwilling licensee.
3. How damages should be assessed on FRAND principles, including royalty base and method.

Court's findings

Lava was held to be an unwilling licensee: it delayed negotiations, did not respond to offers and made no counter-offer. Ericsson was entitled to damages measured by the royalty it would have received had Lava taken a FRAND licence when it began business. Standard-compliant devices were held to implement the SEPs, so damages were payable for all such devices, not only those tested. For mobile devices, where network connectivity is a core function, royalty was to be calculated at the end-product level, and licensing of the whole SEP portfolio was held justified. The comparable-licences method was preferred; Lava's top-down approach and its allegations of royalty stacking and hold-up failed for want of evidence. Seven suit patents were found valid and one (IN 203034) was ordered to be revoked.

Decision

Decree for damages of Rs. 244,07,63,990 in favour of Ericsson, with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until realisation, and actual costs. Certificates of validity were directed for seven suit patents, and IN 203034 was to be revoked.

Important paragraph references

Summary of findings XX-XXIX: FRAND, unwilling licensee and damages methodology; XXXV-XXXVI: decree and validity directions. Later appellate developments were not checked when this note was prepared; read with K.K. Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 18 May 2026) on proof of infringement and FRAND.

Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.