Samsung Case: Samsung: Seeking Injunctions Against Apple

Samsung Case
In the Samsung case, petition consisted of seeking injunctions against Apple, a willing licensee, before the German, UK, Italian, Dutch, and French courts, aiming at banning certain Apple products from the market on the basis of several Samsung 3G SEPs which it had committed to license on FRAND terms.
As a result of the Commission's investigation, Samsung committed to not seek injunctions in Europe on the basis of SEPs for mobile devices for a period of five years against any potential licensee of these SEPs who agrees to accept a specific licensing framework. The commitments given by Samsung shed some light on the circumstances in which the Commission considers that a prospective licensee is “willing". Essentially the commitments

Ericsson on the other hand argued that its patents are SEPs which are necessary for any device to comply with the 2G, 3G and ARM standards, and that Intex was selling products that claimed to be so compliant, but had not licensed the patents from it. It claimed that Intex was infringing its patents.
The court ridiculed the contrary arguments put forward by Intex in CCI and the High Court and also dismissed the arguments of the Intex with regards to Sections 8 and 64. It also rejected the arguments regarding the fact that the Ericsson had yet to establish the essentiality of its patents, and that this could only be established once the challenges to the same were addressed. Thus, all the arguments made by Intex were dismissed by the Court. It further ordered Intex to pay Ericsson 50% of the total royalty amount, as per total selling price per device, and not chipset, from the date of filing the suit within four weeks, and ordered that the rest of the amount be paid to the Court

This was after Micromax had reportedly refused to sign a FRAND license agreement and a three-year negotiation with the company had failed.
Micromax on the other hand dismissed these charges and claimed that Ericsson has failed to keep up with its commitment of providing industry essential patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
The court passed an interim order in favor of Ericsson. It asked Micromax to pay a royalty that amounts up to 1% of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson for using the Swedish equipment maker's patents on technologies that are essential to manufacture the products. T he court, after perusing the royalty rates contained in the agreements presented by Ericsson which it provided to show similar payment arrangement with other handset makers, arrived on this rate, which both parties agreed upon, according to the order.
The interim order holds until December 31, 2015, the deadline set by the court to conclude the