Nokia Technologies Oy Vs. Asustek Computer Inc & Ors.
Facts
Nokia Technologies Oy (Plaintiff) initiated three connected suits against Asustek Computer Inc, Acer Inc, and Hisense Group Holdings, alleging infringement of two patents, IN 424507 and IN 338105. The defendants manufacture electronic products and were accused of using Nokia’s patented technology without authorization. To substantiate its claims and to comply with court procedure, Nokia also proposed to file comparable licensing agreements signed with third parties, many containing sensitive commercial information.
Procedural Detail
The core dispute in these suits related to the creation and functioning of a “Confidentiality Club” to safeguard the confidential nature of licensing agreements Nokia wished to file. Nokia applied under Rule 11 of the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, read with Chapter VII, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The application argued for ten conditions for such a club, but significant opposition developed regarding four key conditions: who should be members (specifically, whether in-house representatives of the defendants could be included), redaction of confidential information before sharing, and rules around disclosure and access.
Dispute
Nokia requested that only external counsels, consultants, and experts (not in-house employees of the defendants) be part of the Confidentiality Club. The rationale was protecting not just Nokia’s confidential information but also those of its licensees who may be commercial competitors to the defendants. Nokia allowed that in-house representatives could participate, but only under a “limited-licensing restriction”: for two years, those who accessed particular agreements could not negotiate with the relevant third party unless that party specifically consented. This mirrored certain international practices, especially under the Unified Patent Court, Munich.
Defendants objected, stating that such restrictions were arbitrary and omitted under both Indian procedural rules and in past practice. It was argued that restricting key personnel risks prejudice and competitive disadvantage, particularly when the pool of employees dealing with licensing was small. Defendants also contended that the order cited by Nokia was a “consent order” and did not set binding precedent. They further argued that confidentiality could be maintained without such limitations and pointed out that in similar past cases, defendants themselves chose their in-house representatives.
Detailed Reasoning
The court noticed that the inclusion of defendants’ in-house representatives within a Confidentiality Club has been settled by previous judgments (InterDigital vs. Xiaomi, 2020:DHC:3598; InterDigital VC Holdings Inc v. Oppo Mobile, 2024:DHC:1338; Nokia Technology Oy v. Lenovo Group Ltd, order dated 24.02.2020). Courts routinely permit in-house representatives as members in SEP (Standard Essential Patent) suits when confidentiality concerns are properly safeguarded. The judge noted that parties were already following similar practices in parallel proceedings abroad, and trying to impose additional restrictions in India, inconsistent with positions taken elsewhere, was not justified.
On the proposal to limit licensing activities (the “two-year embargo”), the court held that such restriction was neither practical nor warranted. Instead, the court imposed an obligation for full and prior disclosure: if an in-house representative was privy to a licensing agreement in the capacity of the Confidentiality Club, they must disclose this to any third-party licensee before negotiating. Thereafter, negotiation is possible only at the licensee’s discretion. This balanced transparency and protected licensees without inactivity or prejudice to the defendants.
Regarding the redaction of confidential material, the court followed the precedent from InterDigital v. Xiaomi and Koninklijke Philips v. Vivo Mobile (2020:DHC:3598; 2023 order). Redaction is permitted only for genuinely confidential details agreed to remain undisclosed between Nokia and its licensees, and only if such information is not relevant to determining royalty rates (FRAND terms—Fair, Reasonable & Non-Discriminatory). Non-redacted versions of documents should be available for inspection by the counsels within the Confidentiality Club, but not by in-house representatives, unless directed otherwise by the court.
Decision
The court issued clear directions: Confidentiality Club is to have the same in-house representatives as those already members in Munich proceedings, ensuring consistency and avoiding unnecessary dissemination of confidential data. The proposed two-year licensing restriction on in-house representatives is not accepted; rather, full and prior disclosure obligations are imposed. Redaction of information is permitted, but only for data confidential by agreement and irrelevant to FRAND assessment, with inspection rights limited for in-house representatives. Nokia must disclose all comparable licence agreements without discretion, ensuring fairness in evaluating licensing terms (FRAND compliance). Other proposed conditions not objected to (such as process for sealed covers, affidavits, experts, etc.) were accepted. The applications are disposed with these terms, and the connected matters are listed for further court orders.
Case Details
Case Title: Nokia Technologies Oy Vs. Asustek Computer Inc & Ors.
Order Date: 22nd September, 2025
Case Numbers: CSCOMM 643/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8511
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
