IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ... .. Plaintiffs

VERSUS
IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

INDEX I

S.No Particulars Pa_g_es

1. Urgent application
z.
2. Opening sheet
3
3. Memo of parties
-,_ . r
4. Plaint with supporting affidavit
6-?t
INDEX II

S.No Particulars Pages

1. Application under Order 39 Rules 1&2

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on
behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking an ex- 2- 2/
parte interim injunction along with
supporting affidavit

2. Application under Order 26 Rule 9 read

with Order 39 Rule 7 read with section
151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
on behalf . of the Plaintiffs seeking
appointment of a local commissioner/s
along with supporting affidavit

3. Application under section 151 of Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of
the Plaintiffs seeking exemption from
filing of the original documents along
with supporting affidavit

4. Appl ication under section 151 of Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of
the Plaintiffs seeking permission to file
dim documents, vernacular documents
and documents with insufficient left
side marqin alonq with suooortina
 affidavit

5. Application under section 149 read

with section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the
Plaintiffs seeking extension to file the
t/J- 4'1>
requisite court fee along with
supporting affidavit

6. Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen under

Section 65B of th~ Indian Evidence
Act, 1876 in respe'ct of the Internet - ,

"'". . . . --:;
\ . .

Printouts being filed and relied upon by

the Plaintiffs
~tt. ~3

INDEX III

S.No Particulars Pa_g_es

1. List of Reliance
~
I ... i.
2. Vakalatnama
?'
INDEX IV

S.No Particulars Pages

1. List of documents along with
documents / _.11~t

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar

Enrl : D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F- 11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014

......

'
I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGI~AL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

India MART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants

INDEX I

S.No Particulars Pages

1. Urgent application

2. Opening sheet
2.
l
~-r
3. Memo of parties

4. Plaint with supporting affidavit ,_l,

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar

Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014

 .2'
I
~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
CS (OS) of 2014

To .
The Deputy Registrar,
Delhi High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors.

.... Defendants

URGENT APPLICATION

Sir,

Will you kindly treat this accompanying suit as an urgent one in

accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders.

The grounds of urgency are:-

"That the suit requires urgent listing as the Defendants

are infringing the rights of the Plaintiff and require urgent

orders to be passed by this Hon'ble Court restraining the

Defendants from continuing with their infringing

activities."

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar

Enrl: D/802/2007 & UP C 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUIT I PETITION I O.M.P. No. of 2013

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. .. .......Plaintiff

Versus

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors ........Defendants

Nature of the matter Suit for injunction, damages, rendition of

accounts etc.

Statutes invoked Patents act, 1970 and Code of Civil Procedure,

1908

ADVOCATES

Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur and Mr. Ashutosh

Kumar ... for Plaintiff

Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) Defendant(s)/Respondent(s)

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS (IAS)

S. No. No. of Yr. Filled by Provisions of Laws Nature of Relief Sought Remarks
Pltff/Def

1. 2014 Plaintiff Order 39 Rule 1 and Ex-parte interim

2 read with Section injunction
151 CPC

2. 2014 Plaintiff Order 26 Rule 9 and Appointment of Local

Order 39 Rule 7 Commissioners

3. 2014 Plaintiff Section 151 CPC Exemption from filing

original documents

4. 2014 Plaintiff Section 151 CPC Exemption seeking

permission to file dim
documents and documents
with insufficient left side
margin and vernacular
documents

5. 2014 Plaintiff Section 149 read 2 weeks extension for

with Section 15 l filing court fees.
CPC
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .... Defendants -

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.

780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
........... Plaintiff No.1

2. Vringo, Inc.
780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
........... Plaintiff No.2

VERSUS

1. India MART InterMESH Limited

29, Daryaganj, Opp. Golcha Cinema
Bharat Base Building
New Delhi 110 002

Also at:

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited

E-5, Second Floor, Opp. Andhra Bank
Kalkaji
New Delhi 110 019

AND

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited

I -11, 2nd Floor, Near Udyog Nagar Metro Station
Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi
New Delhi 110 041

....... Defendant No.1

2. XU Dejun
Chief Executive Officer
 ZTE Telecom India Private Limited
5th Floor
Tower Building No. 10, DLF Cyber City
Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana
....... Defendant No.2

3. ZTE Telecom India Private Limited

' 5th Floor
Tower Building No. 10, DLF Cyber City
Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana

Also at:

114, Jor Bagh

New Delhi 110 003

Also at:

1st Floor, Block A,

Vatika Business Park,
Sector-49, Sohna Road,
Gurgaon-Haryana
...... .... Defendant No.3

4. ZTE Corporation, ZTE Plaza

Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park
Nanshan District, Shenzhen
Guangdong Province, 518057
People's Republic of China

....... Defendant No.4

Saya Choudhary Kapur & Ashutosh Kumar

Enrl: D/802/2007 & UPC 08488/10
Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP
Counsels for the Plaintiffs
F-11, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014

New Delhi

Dated: January, 2014

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

1. Vringo Infrastructure, Inc..

780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
........... Plaintiff No.1

2. Vringo, Inc.
780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
........... Plaintiff No.2

VERSUS

1. IndiaMART InterMESH Limited

29, Daryaganj, Opp. Golcha Cinema
Bharat Base Building
New Delhi 110 002

Also at:

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited

E-5, Second Floor, Opp. Andhra Bank
Kalkaji
New Delhi 110 019

AND

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited

I -11, 2nd Floor, Near Udyog Nagar Metro Station
Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi
New Delhi 110 041

....... Defendant No.1

2. XU Dejun
Chief Executive Officer
ZTE Telecom India Private Limited
5th Floor
Tower Building No. 10, DLF Cyber City
Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana
....... Defendant No.2

3. ZTE Telecom India Private Limited

 6thFloor .
Tower Building No. 10, DLF Cyber City
Phase-II
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana

Also at:

114, Jor Bagh

New Delhi 110 003

Also at:
-
1st Floor, Block A,
Vatika Business Park, .
Sector-49, Sohna Road,
Gurgaon-Haryana
......... . Defendant No.3

4. ZTE Corporation, ZTE Plaza

Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park
Nanshan District, Shenzhen
Guangdong Province, 518057
People's Republic of China

....... Defendant No.4

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING

INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS IN REGISTERED PATENT NO.
IN 200572 TITLED AS 'A METHOD AND A DEVICE FOR
MAKING A HANDOVER DECISION IN A MOBILE
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM', RENDITION OF
ACCOUNTS/DAMAGES, DELIVERY UP ETC.,

The above-named Plaintiffs showeth as under:

1. That the present suit is being filed for infringement of the

Plaintiff No.1 's rights in the registered patent bearing no.

IN 200572 (hereinafter referred to as the suit patent or IN

'572) titled as "A method and a device for making

handover decision in a mobile communication system"

along with rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up etc.

against the Defendants. The subject suit patent is

registered in the name of the Plaintiff No.1 and is currently

valid and subsisting in nature. Further, annuities have

 been regularly paid in respect of the same, as a result of

which by virtue of section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970

(hereinafter the Act) - the Plaintiff No.1 has the exclusive

right to prevent third parties who do not have its consent

from the act of making, using, .offering for sale, selling or

importing for those purposes any infringing products in

India & from using method of operation of such infringing -

products as claimed in IN '572.

ABOUT THE PLAINTIFFS:

2. That the Plaintiff No. 1, Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., is a

company incorporated under the laws of State of

Delaware, United States of America with its principal place

of business at 780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New York,

New York 10017. The Plaintiff No.1, which is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Vringo, Inc., i.e. Plaintiff No.2 herein,

was set up in 2012 and is currently engaged in innovation

and development of telecommunication technologies and

intellectual property. It is most respectfully submitted that

the Plaintiff No.1's intellectual property portfolio consists of

more than 500 patents end patent applications covering

technologies pertaining to telecom infrastructure and

cellular communication. The Plaintiff No.1 also has

exclusive rights to certain cognitive radio technologies

developed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University (Virginia Tech), in part, with a grant from the

National Science Foundation, a U.S. government scientific

research-funding agency. The Plaintiff No.1 is thus also

 engaged in research and development related to cognitive

radio technology.

3. That the Plaintiff No.2, Vringo, Inc., is a company

incorporated under the _laws of the State of Delaware,

United States of America with its principal place of

business at 780 Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY

.-

10017. The Plaintiff No. 2 was a pioneer in the

development of mobile applications and video ringtone

technology.

4. That on December 31, 2013, a definitive acquisition

agreement was signed between the Plaintiff No. 2 and

. .
InfoMedia Services Ltd. in which InfoMedia agreed to

acquire Plaintiff No. 2's mobile partnerships and application

business, and a portfolio of internally developed patents

related to those technologies. The deal is expected to

close on or about March 31, 2014. After the closing, the

Plaintiff No. 2 will acquire approximately an 8/o _e quity

stake in InfoMedia and the Plaintiff No. 2's Chief Executive

Officer, Andrew Perlman, will join InfoMedia's Board of

Directors.

5. That currently, the Plaintiff No.2 operates a global platform

for distribution of mobile social and video services. The

said Plaintiff was awarded the 'Global Telecom Business

Wireless Network Infrastructure Innovation Award' for

launch of the world's first Video Ringtone Service and was

also chosen by AlwaysOn as an 'On Media Top 100

 10
Winners'. It was also given the 'Sony Ericsson Special

Recognition Award' as a winner for best use of all

functionality and the 'MIPCOM Mobile and Internet Award'

as a winner for 'Best Mobile Service for Social Community

and User Generated Products'.

6. That the Plaintiff No.2 is currently involved in the

development and distribution of mobile products and

services and will continue to be so involved until the

anticipated closing date. The Plaintiff No.2 currently offers

its social and video ringtone applications globally through

mobile application stores and through mobile operators in

India, The United Kingdom, Malaysia and The United Arab

Emirates. In India, the Plaintiff No.2's products and

services are available to Tata Docomo customers as well as

~o users through the Nokia Download Store, Google Play,

and independent Android Mobile application stores.

7. That the Plaintiff No.2 owns outright or through its

subsidiaries a significa~t patent portfolio related to mobile

applications, internet search and search advertising

technology. It is most respectfully submitted that the

patents and the patent applications which form part of

both Plaintiffs' portfolios have been either developed

internally or have been acquired from third parties. Mr.

David L. Cohen has been duly authorized on behalf of both

the Plaintiff Companies to sign, verify and institute the

present suit. Copies of the duly apostilled General Power of

 ,,
Attorney authorizing Mr. Cohen is being filed along with

the present suit.

SUIT PATENT: IN 200572

8. That the present suit pertains to the registered Indian

Patent No. IN 200572 which was originally applied for and

granted in the name of Nokia Telecommunications OY

-
(Finland). Thereafter, the patentee changed its name from

Nokia Telecommunications OY to Nokia Networks OY which

subsequently merged with Nokia OYJ (which is the Finnish

name of Nokia Corporation). By a Confidential Patent

Purchase Agreement dated gth August, 2012, the Plaintiff

no.2 (Vringo Inc.) acquired from Nokia Corporation the

various rights, title and interests inter alia in the suit

patent for the entire term of the patent including rights

that enure upon the patent prior to the date of the

agreement. Thereafter, by way of an intra-group company

agreement dated 10 September 2012, the Plaintiff No.2

assigned the various rights, titles and interests (as

acquired from Nokia Corporation) inter alia in the suit

patent including right to sue for past infringement to the

Plaintiff No.1. Both the aforesaid assignments have been

confirmed and duly recorded in India vide Deed of

assignments dated 15.3.2013 and 12.4.2013 respectively

entered into between the parties concerned pertaining

exclusively to Indian patents and patent applications that

were assigned by virtue of the Patent Purchase Agreement

and intra-group company agreement. It is humbly

submitted that applications for the recordal of the

 aforementioned assignments dated 15.3.2013 and

12.4.2013 have been filed with the Chennai Patent Office

and the same has been duly recorded in the Register of

Patents. The documents evidencing the assignment from

Nokia to Vringo Inc. and thereafter from Vringo Inc. to

Vringo Infrastructure Inc. along with copy of Form 16 as

filed before the Chennai Patent Office are being filed in the -
present proceedings. Further, documents evidencing the

name change of the patentee from Nokia

Telecommunications OY to Nokia Corporation are also

being filed.

9. That the application being 304/MAS/ 1997 for grant of the

suit patent was filed on 14.2.1997 seeking priority from

the Finnish Patent Application no. 960766 of 20.2.1996.

The aforesaid application was duly examined by the Patent

Office as per the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 and

as all the essential conditions (novelty, inventive step and

industrial application) necessary for grant of a patent were

fulfilled - the suit patent (IN 200572) was granted by the

Patent Office. Details of the said patent which is the

subject of the present suit are as follows:

Application number 304/MAS/ 1997

PCT application PCT/FI1997/000101

number
Title . 'A method and a device
for making a handover
decision in a mobile
communication system'
 11
Filing date 14.2.1997

Priority date 20.2.1996

11A publication 29.7.2005

PCT publication W01997031496 Al

number 1.

Date of grant 31.5.2006

Patent number IN 200572

Further, corresponding patents have been granted in other

jurisdictions as well.

ANALYSIS OF THE SUIT PATENT:

io. That the invention disclosed and claimed in IN '572 relates

to a method and a device for making a handover decision

in a mobile communication system comprising of at least

one microcell (A, B, . C) the coverage area of which is at

least mainly located within the coverage area of another

cell (M) as shown herein below.

MS
~
D
000
000
000
000

Fig 1 of the complete specification: Two /aver radio

coverage in a mobile communication system

11. That in an exemplary embodiment of the suit patent for a

GSM mobile communication system, the handover decision

is made by a Base Station Controller (BSC) which interacts

 I~
I
"'

with and is connected to a mobile services switching centre

(MSC) and base stations (BTSl . . . BTSM) as illustrated

herein below: .'

BSC

MSC
BTS 1

..
BTS 2 41

Handover control
BTSM

431 ' -
Register 1 Counter 1
422
....--------;,.....-'
Register 2 Counter 2

Register M Counter M

Fig 4 of the complete specification: Block diagram of

a base station controller implementing a preferred
embodiment of the handover decision according to
the invention

The base station controller (BSC) includes

i) a handover control unit ( 41) which controls the

handover procedure;

ii) counters ( 431-43M) which inter alia perform various

functions used in making a handover decision; and

iii) registers (421-42M) that are associa~ed with each

base station and that contain pre-set parameters for
their respective base station. The parameters
contained in the registers include the threshold level
'T'. of measurement results and the threshold value N
of a counter.

It is pertinent to state herein that the claimed invention is

not limited to the GSM embodiment exemplified herein

above.

12. That the method of making a hand over decision, in an

exemplary embodiment, by the BSC in a GSM mobile

}..,/

communication system as disclosed in the suit patent

comprises of:

a. Measuring at the mobile station a radio signal

transmitted by a base station of a microcell and
reporting the measurement result at substantially
regular intervals. The measurement result may
represent for instance the received power, bit
error ratio or a combination thereof. This signal
measurement result (MR) is then compared with a
threshold level 'T' which is pre-set in a Register.
If the measurement result is less than or equal to -
the pre-set threshold level (MR~T) then such
measurement result is classified as unacceptable
which in turn results in a decrement, by a pre-set
decrement amount, in the counter or value of
relative speed;

b. If the measurement result is greater than the pre-

set threshold level (MR> T), then such
measurement is classified as acceptable which in-
turn results in an increment by pre-set
incremental amount, in the counter or value of
relative speed;

c. The counter value is then compared with pre-set

threshold value 'N' obtained from a Register.
When the value of the counter exceeds the pre-
set threshold value 'N' - the mobile station is
defined as slow moving mobile station and it is
preferably handed over to the base station of a
microcell thereby reducing the load on the base
station of a macrocell;

It is pertinent to state herein that the threshold level 'T'

with which the measurement results are compared and the

threshold counter value 'N' maybe set by the operator of

the mobile communication network and a separate

. .
threshold level 'T' or threshold value 'N' maybe set for

each base station and for each microcell respectively.

Further, the counter value never becomes negative and

the comparison of signal measurement result with a

threshold level pre-set in the Register, the increment or

decrement of the counter, the comparison of the counter

 value with a pre-set threshold value are functions

performed by the counter.

13. Thus, by way of the suit patent, the load on the macrocell

is reduced and unnecessary transfers are prevented

thereby improving the voice quality. Further, various

short-comings that were prevalent in the prior art (where

handover decision were based on a single measuremen~

result) have been over-come by monitoring the level

and/or quality of the base station signal received by a

mobile station for a longer time on the basis of which a

mobile station is labeled as slow moving or fast moving.

14. That the claims of the suit patent which define the scope of

the statutory monopoly granted in favour of the Plaintiff

no.1 are as follows:

II

CLAIMS:

1. A method for making a handover decision in a mobile

communication system comprising at least one microcell
{A.B.C), the coverage area of which is at least mainly
located within the coverage area of another cell (M), said
method comprising the steps of measuring at a mobile
station (MS) a radio signal transmitted by a base station
{BTS) of a microcell, and reporting the measurement
results at substantially regular intervals, and commanding
mobile stations defined as slow moving mobile stations to
switch to the base station (BTS) of a suitable microcell (A,
B, CJ, determining a relative speed for the mobile station
(MS) on the basis of the:number and classification of the
measurement results received at substantially regular
intervals, and defining a mobile station {MS) as a slow
moving mobile station, when the determined relative
speed of said mobile is lower than a predetermined relative
speed.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein measurement

results are compared with a pre-set signal threshold level
 ' \

11-
{T), and classified measurement results above the
threshold level {T) is taken as acceptable and
measurement results below the threshold level {T) or
missing measurement results are taken as unacceptable.

3. The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the signal

threshold level (T) is expressed as the signal level.

4. The method as claimed in claim 2 or 3, wherein the value

representing the relative speed is incremented by a pre-set
increment step when the measurement result is
acceptable, the value representing the relative speed
decreased by a pre-set decrement step when the
measurement result is unacceptable, the value
representing relative speed is compared with a threshold
value (NJ, and a mobile station (MS) is defined as slow
moving when the value representing relative speed
exceeds the threshold value {N) .
I

5. The method as claimed in claim 41 wherein the increment

step is greater than or equal to the decrement step.

6. A device for making a handover decision in a mobile

communication system comprising at least one microcell
{A, 8 1 C) the coverage area of which is at least mainly
located within the coverage area of another cell (M), and
mobile stations arranged to measure a radio signal
transmitted by a base station (BTS) of at least one
microcell and to repprt the measurement result at
substantially regular intervals, wherein the said device
comprises counter for classifying the measurement results
received at substantially regular intervals for the base
station of each microcell, counter for determining a relative
speed of the 'mobile station {MS) by counting the classified
measurement results for the base station signals of each
microcell on the basis of. their number and classification,
and counter for comparing the relative speed of the mobile
station (MS) with a pre-set threshold value (N), and
defining the mobile station (MS) as a slow moving mobile
station when the threshold value (N) is exceeded and a
controller ( 41) for commanding a mobile station defined as
a slow moving mobile station to switch to the base station
{BTS) of a suitable microcell (A, B, CJ.

7. The device as claimed in claims 6, wherein the counter is

provided to classify measurement results above the pre-
set signal threshold level (T) as acceptable and
measurement results below the threshold level (T) or
missing measurement results as unacceptable.

8. The device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the counter is

responsive to an acceptable measurement result to
increment the value representing the relative speed by a
pre-set increment and the counter is responsive to an
unacceptable measurement result to decrement the value
representing the relative speed by a pre-set decrement.
9. A method for making a handover decision in a mobile
communication system substantially as herein described
with reference to the accompanying drawings.

10. A device for making a handover decision in a mobile

communication system substantially as herein described
with reference to the accompanying drawings."

The detailed embodiment and background of the invention

etc., are set out in detail in the Complete Specification and

the same is not reproduced herein to ensure brevity. The

Complete Specification is being filed in the present

proceedings and the Plaintiffs refer to and rely upon the

same.

ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR INFRINGING

ACTIVITIES:

15. That the Defendant No.1 is an online platform which hosts

various advertisements and offers for sale various products

including products which are manufactured/sold/imported

.
by the Defendant Nos.3&4 and which infringe the

registered suit patent of the Plaintiffs. Further, the

Defendant No.3, ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd, is a private

limited company incorporated under the laws. of. India and

is the wholly owned subsidiary of the Defendant No.4, ZTE

Corporation, a company incorporated under the laws of the

People's Republic of China. The Defendant No.2 is the

Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant No.3. The said

Defendant No.2 has been impleaded as a party in the

present proceedings on account of his principal role and

strategic control over the business of the Defendant No.3

company in India.
 ,,
16. That the Defendant No.4 is one of the largest

manufacturers and sellers of telecommunications

equipment and devices such as mobile handsets, dongles,

tablets, infrastructure equipment & devices, etc. The

Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 sell their devices (including

infra.structure equipment) in India to companies like Tata

Teleservices, Airtel, Sistema Shyam Teleservices, BSNL,

Reliance Communications, Aircel, vodafone etc., and are

also involved in setting up of telecom infrastructure for

various telecom players across the country including the

upkeep, maintenance and servicing of such equipment.

The Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 thus:

a. Offer for sale infrastructure equipment including

BSC (which incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented
technology) in India;

b. Set up infrastructure equipment including BSC

(which incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented
technology) for various operators in India;

c. Offer servicing/maintenance of infrastructure

equipment including BSC (which incorporate the
Plaintiffs' patented technology) in India;

d. Take care of warranty related obligations of

infrastructure equipment including BSC (which
incorporate the Plaintiffs' patented technology) in
India;

e. Actively conduct business in India.

17. That the Defe.ndants are infringing the suit patent of the

Plaintiff No.1 by

i. manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale

infrastructure equipment (including BSC) which are in
direct violation of the Plaintiff No.1 's statutory rights as
covered by claims 6, 7, 8 & 10 of IN '572;
ii setting up and operating of infrastructure equipment
(including BSC) for various service providers which
function as per the claims 1,2',3,4, 5 & 9;

Examples of such infringing BSCs which are being

manufactured, imported, installed, serviced etc. by the

Defendants are ZTE ZXGlO iBSC and ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2.

Detailed infringement analysis charts qua the aforesaid _..

infringing BSCs prepared by the Plaintiffs along with an

expert affidavit establishing the infringement of the suit

patent by the Defendants are being filed in the present

proceedings. Further, a perusal of ZTE's BSS feature list

reveals that the infringing method is being adopted by all

of the BSCs being manufactured by the Defendant No.4 for

making a handover decision from a macrocell to a

microcell. Thus, the infringing BSCs enumerated

hereinabove are by way of an illustration and the Plaintiffs

reserve their rights to enlist names and details of any

. .
other device (e.g., infras.tructure equipment) found to be

infringing in nature subsequent to the commencement of

the present legal proceeding. It is pertinent to state herein

that since the Defendants' product literature provides

details corresponding to the technical teachings of the suit

patent, hence at this stage no test report is being filed to

establish infringement of IN '572 by either ZTE ZXGlO

iBSC or ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2. The said product literature

clearly establishes the infringement of the suit patent.

However, the Plaintiffs reserve their rights to file testing or

any other form of technical evidence if the need arises in

future especially if the Defendants dispute the said

 111
documents (technical literature) and the

technology/infringement thereof of the suit patent.

Further, it is pertinent to state herein that Nokia

Corporation had represented to the Plaintiff No.2 that the

Defendant No.4 was not and is not licensed for the suit

patent.

-
18. That by virtue of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970

during the life time and subsistence of the suit patent - the

Plaintiff No.1 is legally entitled to prevent any third party

who does not have its permission from making, using,

offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes

infringing produc~s in India or froni operating

infrastructure equipment as per the method claimed under

the suit patent. Thus, in order to prevent the Defendants

from infringing its rights in IN '572 the Plaintiff No.1 is

instituting the present suit. It is most respectfully

submitted that the suit patent is valid and . subsisting in

nature as annuities in respect of the same has been

regularly paid. Further, no pre-grant or post-grant

opposition or revocation petition in respect of the same

has been filed.

DAMAGES:

19. That by way of their blatant acts of infringement, huge

amount of profits is being illegally earned by the

Defendants. It is most respectfully submitted that the

Plaintiffs believe that till date 1750 units of the infringing

 BSCs have been sold by the Defendants in India at a price

of USO 85,000 approximately. Thus, the Plaintiffs are

entitled to Rs. 17,85,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen crores

and eighty five lakhs only) as damages,. however, the

same is a rough estimate as the Plaintiffs are not privy to

the exact sales figures, revenue details etc. as earned by

the Defendants due to their infringing activities. Thus, the

Defendants are liable to render sales accounts pertaining

to all the infringing infrastructure equipment which have

been imported, manufactured, sold, offered for sale,

installed, operated etc. by them since the date of

publication of the suit patent i.e. 29.7.2005. Further, the

Plaintiffs reserve their rights to claim additional damages

.
as per sales revenue that may be disclosed by the

Defendants. The Defendant No.4 does not have any office

in India and hence a greater need to secure the interest of

the Plaintiffs arises.

20. That the Defendants ought not to be allowed to exploit the

Plaintiff No.l's patented technology . without its approval

and to the prejudice of the said Plaintiff. Thus, the acts of

the Defendants of importing, manufacturing, marketing,

selling, installing and operating infringing devices

(including infrastructure equipment like BSCs) which use

the patented technology are liable to be injuncted by this

Hon'ble Court inasmuch as the Plaintiff No.1 's rights in the

suit patent are extremely valuable in nature.

21. That the suit patent has been granted after following the

examination process in accordance with the Act and the

Rules. Further, a perusal of the infringement analysis

charts filed along with the suit by the Plaintiffs qua ZTE's

ZXG10i BSC & ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2 establish beyond any

reasonable doubt that the Defendants are manufacturing,

importing, selling, offering for sale, installing and

maintaining infringing infrastructure equipment across

India. Thus, the Plaintiff No.1 's rights are liable to be

protected by this Hon'ble Court.

22. The suit patent was brought to the notice of the

Defendants vide letter dated 25th September 2012, a copy

of which is being file<;i in the present proceedings.

However, the Defendants did not approach the Plaintiffs

seeking a license qua the suit patent. Thus, the Plaintiffs

have taken all reasonable steps required to put the

Defendants on notice. Further, the Plaintiffs have instituted

another suit being CS (OS) no. 2168 of 2013 against the

Defendant Nos.2-4 with respect to IN 243980 which is a

Standard Essential Patent related to

CDMA2000/~DMA2000 REV A/CDMA2000 REV B

technology, which is currently pending before this Hon'ble

Co~rt. As the patent, the technology and the infringing

devices involved in the present case are different, thus,

the Plaintiffs are instituting a separate suit against the

Defendants qua IN '572. Copies of the initial injunction

order granted by the Ld . Single Judge and the interim

 arrangement as directed by the Ld. Division Bench are

being filed in the present proceedings. It is pertinent to

note that the present suit relates to a patent qua GSM

technology which is the most extensively prevalent

technology in India.

OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES:

23 . That the Defendants . are infringing various Standard

Essential Patents owned by the Plaintiff No.1 in 'different

parts of the world and in respect of the same the

abovementioned letter dated 25th September, 2012 was

addressed by the Plaintiff No.1 to the Defendant No.4

wherein details about its various standard essential

patents and implementation patents were provided and the

Defendant No. 4 was asked to indicate if it was interested

to take a global license for itself and its subsidiaries. The

Defendant No.4 did not reply to the aforesaid letter and

there were no concrete efforts which wen~ taken by the

said Defendant to seek or negotiate a license from the

Plaintiffs for their standard essential patents or

implemer:'tation patents. On the contrary, the Defendant

No.4 along with its various subsidiaries continued to

infringe Plaintiff No.1 's standard . essential patents in

various jurisdictions, as a result of which, legal

proceedings have been initiated by the said Plaintiff

against Defendant No.4 and/or its subsidiary in:

a. UK

b. Germany

c. France
 d. Australia

It is humbly stated that proceedings in all these countries

are currently pending. Further, it is - pertinent to state

herein that vi de order dated 17.12.2013 the Regional

Court Mannheim, Germany has passed an order in favour

of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No.4 and its

German subsidiary holding them guilty of indirect

infringement. Copy of the English translation of the said

order is being fi led with the present proceedings. It is

relevant to point out that the Defendant Nos. 2-4, insofar

as India is concerned, have had notice of the suit patent

since at least September 2012 but have never challenged

' .
the . validity of the s~it patent. The Defendants have

blatantly infringed the suit patent without any respect for

the Plaintiff No.1 's statutory rights despite having complete

notice of the suit patent. Such infringing acts of the

Defendants along with their indifference to the statutory

rights of the Plaintiff No.1 needs to be taken serious note

\
of.

CAUSE OF ACTION:

24. The cause of action arose for the first time when the

Plaintiff issued notice to the Defendants in September

2012 and thereafter continues on every single day when

infringing products are being imported, sold, offered for

sale, advertised, installed, operated etc. in India . by the

Defendants on a daily basis. Despite having notice of the

subject patent and also having been sued with respect to

 another patent of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant Nos. 3&4

have refused to enter into any "meaningful negotiations"

and thus continue to infringe the suit patent. Though there

have been a few .meetings between the parties, the said

Defendants refuse to acknowledge the ownership of the

various patents of the Plaintiffs and hence the Plaintiffs are

.-
left with no option but to file the present suit in order to

seek enforcement of their legal and statutory rights in the

suit patent .. The cause of action is a continuous one and

will continue to subsist till an appropriate order injuncting

the Defendants is passed by this Hon'ble Court.

JURISDICTION:

25. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain

the present suit as the Defendants are openly selling,

offering for sale, advertising and importing the infringing

infrastructure equipmenf all over India including Delhi

through the Delh.i Customs Office a.s a result of which the

cause of action has arisen in Delhi i.e. within the

jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The infringing products

are also installed and serviced in Delhi. The Defendant

Nos.2-4 are also offering their products for sale on line

through various websites (including the Defendant no.1 's

web portal) which are accessible in Delhi. Further,

Defendant No.1 & Defendant No.3 (which is a subsidiary of

the Defendant No.4) have offices in Delhi and are carrying

on business for profit and gain in Delhi. All the Defendants

are carrying on business i.e. , advertising and offering for

 sale the infringing products within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble Court.

COURT FEES

26. That the present suit is valued for the purpose of

jurisdiction and court fees as follows:

A. For a decree of permanent injunction restraining

infringement of registered patent nos. IN 200572 by

the Defendants - the suit is valued at Rs.200/- (Two

hundred only) and a court fee of Rs.20/-. (Twenty

only) is being affixed;

B. For an order of delivery up of infringing

devices/components/infrastructure equipment which

incorporate the use of Plaintiff No.l's patented

technology - the suit is valued at Rs. 200/- (two

hundred) and court fee of Rs.20/- (Twenty only) is

being affixed;

C. For a decree of damages/rendition of Accounts and

the amount found due - based on Plaintiffs' current

understanding the suit is being valued at Rs.

17,85,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen crores eighty five

lakhs only) and court fees of Rs .17,44,504/ - (Rupees

seventeen lakhs forty four thousand five hundred

and four only) is being affixed. The Plaintiffs further

undertake to pay any additional amount of court fees

that may be determined by this Hon'ble Court on the

 bas.is of revenue details disclosed by the Defendants

and damages/amount found due claimed thereon by

the Plaintiffs.

The present suit is currently valued for the purposes of

court fees & jurisdiction at R~. 17 ,85,00,400/- (Rupees

sevent.een crores eighty five lakhs and four hundred only)

and court fees of Rs .17,44,544/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs

forty four thousand five hundred and forty four only) is

being paid.

PRAYER:

27. The Plaintiffs in the light of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances most respectfully pray that the following

reliefs be granted in their favour and against the

Defendants:

i. A decree of Permanent Injunction be passed in

favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants,

their officers, Directors, Agents, Importers,

Distributors and Customers restraining them from

manufacturing, importing, selling, <?ffering for sale,

advertising (either directly or indirectly .including

through third party websites), installing, operating

and maintaining/servicing any infringing devices

such as infrastructure equipment including ZXGlO

iBSC & ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2 so as to result in

 infringement of the Plaintiff No.1 's patent no. IN

200572.

ii. A decree of damages/rendition of accounts to the

tune of Rs. 17,85,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen

crores eighty five lakhs only) along with additional

damages found due on the basis of the accounts

disclosed by the Defendants may be passed in

favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

Thus, appropriate directions maybe passed to the

Defendants to render sales accounts since the year

2005 qua the infringing devices including

infrastructure equipment being manufactured,

imported, sold, offered for sale, installed,

maintained and operated by them either directly or

indirectly in India. The Plaintiffs undertake to pay

any additional court fees as determined by this

Hon'ble Court on the complete disclosure of the

revenues earned by the Defendants and on

damages/amount found due claimed thereon by

the Plaintiffs.

iii. An order of dismantling and delivery up of

infringing infrastructure equipment including

ZXGlO iBSC & ZTE ZXG10-BSCV2 that employ the

use of patented t~chnology maybe passed;

iv. Costs of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiffs;

------ - - --- - -- -- - - --

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961 )

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of c ounty Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State , State of New York

8. No. NYCM142748

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

*! Sandra J. Tallman
Special Deputy Secretary of State

Apostille (REV: 09/25/12)

 -- - _...__,._.._ --.

FEE PAID $3.00

JAN 2. 1 2074 COM11ty Cltrk ond Cltrk of t Suprnnt CO'Mrl, NroJ Yora COtU1ty

.:
~ ..

.
.

.,,. ,,
 I ,

/
/ v. Any further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity be

passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendant.

l
j THROUGH
PLAINTIFF

I ::_
David L. Cohen
!
I . (Authorized Signatory}

THROUGH

SAYA CHOUDHARY KAPUR & ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Advocates for Plaintiff
SINGH AND SINGH LAW FIRM LLP

New Delhi

Date:

VERIFICATION:
Verified at f'-J); .0-t (J(~ on thisl_:+, day of January, 2014

that the contents o~

. paragraphs 1-9, 14-17 & 19-23 of the

above plaint are true . to my own personal knowledge and

knowledge derived from the official r~cords of the Plaintiff

Company. The contents of paragraphs 10-13 are true and

correct as per technical inputs received from the in-house

technical experts and the contents of paragraphs 18 & 24-26

are based upon legal advice received by me and believed to be

correct. The last paragraph is the Prayer before thi~'ble

Court. ~ \ '

St-o.-t-e. ot Ne.w
Covrrty r>f Ne.~ Yort ..
Yor ~ :5 S" : ifr) '-y' l
David 1:. ,,..C6hen
(Authorized Signatory)
5WO('T\ i;, 1'i1.L -tti I S 17-th
day at Ja.nvo.ry iar1
k<Lfli!
Notaiy Publlc, State of New York
Nn. 01LE82838a1 .
 .,

, - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- ------ -------

(Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobrc 1961)

1. Country: United States of America

This public document

2. has been signed by Norman Goodman

3. acting in the capacity of County Clerk

4. bears the seal/stamp of the county of New York

Certified

5. at New York City, New York 6. the 21st day of January 2014

7. by Special Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York

8. No. NYC-142746

9. Seal/Stamp 10. Signature

Apostille (REV: 09'25/12)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) No. of 2014

In the matter of:

Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs

VERSUS

IndiaMART InterMESH Limited & Ors. .. .. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. David L Cohen S/o Mr. Ben T. Cohen, aged about 42

years, working at Vringo Inc. at 780, Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New

York, NY 10017, United States of America.

The above-named Deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the Chief Lega_I and IP Officer of Vringo ~nc. (Plaintiff

no.2 herein) and I am fully aware of the facts and circumstance

of the present case. I am authorized and competent to swear

and depose the present affidavit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs.

2. That the accompanyirlg plaint has been drafted by my counsels

as per my instructions and the contents of the same maybe

read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as the same are

not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That I have perused the accompanying plaint and I say that the

contents of the same are true and correct as per my own

knowledge and as per information received and believed to be

true from the Plaintiff Companies. k.-. .

DEPONENT

David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
\lr-inril"I Tnfr::1c:tr11rh 1rP Tnr _
 ,, Fo= 1

State of New York

County of New York,
}
s.s.: .......5..4..9.7..0...........................
I, NORMAN GOOD AN, County Cleric and State of
New York, a~rt o( R
,. ~
New York, In and for the Count
DO HEREBY CER TIF u ant to the ecutlve he St t of New York, that

...
0 ..
. .....................................................'l.......~~
-~
~ . ,
.

~~;~ha~.f~~:~~b!i~~~{~~i~~ Y ?d~tfi~~~~~~~ i~;~h~c~'s~:t tc of aclcnowledgment or proof, wa~ u \ bc /

New Yorlc duh commissioned, sworrt ani;!/
qualified to act as such; that pursuant to law, a commission or a c rti6cate of his official character, with lrls I'
autograph ti8nature has been 6led in m.y office; that at the time oi takin111uc.h proof, ack:nowledgm.cnt or oatn; he~
was duly authorized to take the same; rhat I am well acquainted with rhe handwriting of such NOTARY PVBLlC'- ,
or have compared the signature on the annexed instrument with his autograph slrnature deposited l.n my office, and ~
I t_ellcvc that such signature is genuine. \;
. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hercunro set my hand affixed my official seal this -.-

.,f,

...,...,.
 / VERIFICATION

/ Verified at ~Yi U)G on this day of January, 2014

that the contents of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and

i
I
!. belief. I say that no part of it is false and nothing material has been
:

concealed there from.

DEPONENT

David L Cohen
Chief Legal and IP Officer
Vringo Inc.
Vringo Infrastructure Inc.

5-ro;n. o-f Nt1JJ Yor "-

c"nty of Ntt.vyork- ~~ s:
Sworn to me.. -tt,15 f1~
do.y of Tanuo..ry J..o14
JQlfll,t;;. ~

SAM G.1.EFFELL
Notary Public,,State of New YOl1<
No. 01LE6283831
Quallfled In New York County
Commission E>cpiresJune 17, 2.017