Delhi High Court Restrains Xiaomi From Enforcing Anti-Suit Injunction

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The Plaintiff (Interdigital Technology Corp.) approached the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against Xiaomi (Defendant). The Plea sought a direction to restrain the Defendant from pursuing the anti-suit injunction order.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff herein filed a suit against infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEP) by Xiaomi. It was alleged that Xiaomi had been using its patented technology without entering into a licensing agreement. On the very same day, the Defendant filed an application, before the Wuhan Court, seeking an anti-suit injunction. And hence, restraining the Plaintiff from pursuing and prosecuting the present suit before the Court.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Learned Senior Counsel Mr Gourab Banerjee appeared for the Plaintiff. He relied on Modi Entertainment Network v. W. S. G. Cricket Pte Ltd, where it was held that the power of Indian Courts, to grant anti-suit injunctions, against proceedings pending in foreign jurisdictions, stands recognised by the Supreme Court. 

Mr.Banerjee further draws attention to the fact that the concept of anti-enforcement injunction is unknown to Indian Law. And even in foreign jurisdictions, the concept of anti-enforcement injunction arises only when a party seeks restraint against the enforcement of a final judgement.  

Mr Banerjee further submits that the competence of Indian Courts to grant anti-anti-suit injunctions stands recognised by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Devi Resources Ltd v. Ambo Exports Ltd. And in the facts of the present case, grant of such anti-suit-injunction would be necessary to do complete justice.

Defendant’s Arguments

Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal appeared for the Defendant. He contended that the present suit before the Court is, in its nature, an anti-enforcement injunction, and not an anti-anti-suit injunction. 

Mr Rajagopal further submits that the application, of the Plaintiff, was not maintainable, as there was no prayer, in the suit, for an anti-suit injunction.

Court’s Order

The Court observed that the Order of the Wuhan Court directly negates the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, it infringes the authority of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of this country.

Hence, the Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar restrained the Chinese electronics giant, Xiaomi from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court.

Click Here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -