Summary
The Delhi High Court in Nokia v. Asustek clarifies rules on Confidentiality Clubs and comparable licenses in SEP patent disputes. The Court permitted inclusion of the defendants' in-house representatives without the proposed two-year licensing restriction, allowed redactions in comparable licenses with conditions, and directed disclosure of all such licenses.
In the case of Nokia Technologies Oy vs Asustek Computer Inc & Ors, the Delhi High Court held that in-house representatives of defendants can be part of a Confidentiality Club in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) suits. The Court also ruled that confidential licensing agreements cannot be redacted arbitrarily and declined to impose restrictions on in-house members from participating in future licensing negotiations.
Background
Nokia Technologies filed three separate patent infringement suits against Asustek Computer Inc. (Asustek), Acer Inc. (Acer), and Hisense Group Holdings Co. Ltd. (Hisense), alleging infringement of Indian patents IN 424507 and IN 338105. These patents relate to innovations in mobile communication standards. The disputes arose from Nokia’s claims that the defendants were manufacturing and selling infringing devices without licenses. To support its case, Nokia proposed submitting comparable third-party license agreements in a Confidentiality Club to demonstrate FRAND royalty rates.
To protect sensitive information in these documents, Nokia requested the creation of a Confidentiality Club – a legal arrangement where only selected individuals are allowed to view confidential documents. Nokia also wanted to redact parts of the agreements and prevent in-house representatives of the defendants from accessing or using this information in future licensing negotiations for at least two years.
Issues before the Court
-
- Can in-house representatives of defendants be included in a Confidentiality Club for SEP suits?
- Can a party redact portions of confidential license agreements when submitting them to the court?
- Can restrictions be imposed on in-house representatives from participating in licensing discussions after accessing confidential agreements?
Arguments by the Plaintiff (Nokia)
Nokia contended that the Confidentiality Club should exclude defendants’ in-house representatives or, alternatively, include them only under a limited-licensing restriction. Nokia argued that such representatives, being active in day-to-day business operations, could misuse confidential information from third-party licenses, potentially harming Nokia’s licensees and competitive position. Relying on the decision in InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (2024), Nokia emphasized that Rule 11(i) of the Patent Rules, 2022, and Rule 19 of the Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022, contemplate limiting access to maintain information integrity. Nokia further proposed redacting irrelevant parts of the license agreements, as long as those parts are not relied upon, as per the findings in InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Xiaomi Corporation (2020:DHC:3598) and the order dated 16 February 2023 in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Vivo Mobile.
Arguments by the Defendants (Asustek, Acer, and Hisense)
Asustek, Acer, and Hisense opposed the exclusion of their in-house representatives, arguing that no rule under the Patent Rules, 2022, or Original Side Rules, 2018, precludes their participation or imposes extra-statutory licensing restrictions. They contended that Nokia’s proposed two-year restriction was arbitrary, onerous, and without legal foundation, as it would paralyze their licensing negotiations and confer veto power on third parties. Relying on the decision in Nokia Technologies Oy v. Lenovo Group Ltd., they noted Nokia’s past acceptance of in-house representatives without restrictions. On redactions, the defendants argued that blanket permission was contrary to Rule 19 of the Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2022, and could prejudice their ability to assess FRAND terms, including discounts, territorial scopes, and royalty rates. They relied on InterDigital v. Xiaomi (2020:DHC:3598) and the decision in Unilin Beheer B.V. v. Balaji Action Buildwell (2024:DHC:7244), insisting that unredacted versions must be accessible to club members and that Nokia disclose all comparable licenses for verification, as per InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. v. Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (2024:DHC:7244). Hisense added that no such redactions were permitted in parallel foreign proceedings.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
-
On inclusion of in-house representatives:
The Court observed that the inclusion of defendants’ in-house representatives in Confidentiality Clubs for SEP suits is well accepted, as established in InterDigital v. Xiaomi, and Nokia had previously consented to it without restrictions in Nokia Technologies Oy v. Lenovo Group Ltd.
-
On redacting portions of confidential license agreements:
The Court held that while permissible, Nokia must inform defendants of the nature, extent, and reasons beforehand. It held that blanket redactions without explanation could unfairly hinder the opposing party’s ability to assess the fairness of comparable licenses. The Court emphasized that even redacted documents must be reviewed by Confidentiality Club members to help the Court decide on their relevance.
-
On limited-licensing restriction:
The Court rejected Nokia’s request to prevent in-house members from participating in licensing negotiations for two years. The Court said there was no legal justification for such a restriction, especially since Nokia had accepted no such restriction in similar foreign proceedings. Instead, the Court directed that in-house representatives must disclose to any third-party licensee if they had accessed its license through the Confidentiality Club before beginning any negotiations.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the constitution of the Confidentiality Club, including defendant consultants, experts and specified in-house representatives without the proposed limited-licensing restriction. The Court further directed that any redactions in license agreements must be specific, and that Confidentiality Club members must have access to unredacted copies for review.
Citation: Nokia Technologies Oy vs Asustek Computer Inc & Ors, CS(COMM) 643/2025, 644/2025, 645/2025, decided on 22 September 2025, Delhi High Court.
Accessibility review by: Gaurav Mishra
