IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  CS(OS) 764/2015
  
  TELEFONKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL) ..... Plaintiff
  
  Through : Mr.C.S.Vaidyanathan and
  
  Ms. Prathiba M.Singh, Sr. Advocates with
  
  Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.B.Prashant Kumar and
  
  Mr. Saurabh Anand, Advocates
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  
  
  LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED .... Defendant
  
  Through : Mr. Kapil Sibal and
  
  Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocates with
  
  Ms. Gayatri Roy, Mr.Nirupam Lodha,
  
  Mr. Ankush Mahajan, Mr.Koshy John and
  
  Ms. Rhyea Malik, Advocates
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   24.03.2015
  
  
  
  I.A. No.5771/2015 (exemption)
  
  Subject to the plaintiff filing the originals of the documents
  placed on record within four weeks, the application is allowed and
  disposed of.
  
  CS(OS) 764/2015 and IAs No.5768-70/2015 and IAs No.5772-73/2015
  
  
  
  1. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant
  states that despite several meetings that the parties have had, the
  
  CS(OS) 764/2015 Page 1 of 3
  
  
  
  plaintiff refused to share with the defendant the details of the licence
  agreements executed by Ericsson with other parties worldwide.
  
  2. Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
  plaintiff states that the information with regard to the agreements
  
  executed by Ericsson and other Indian parties was the subject matter of CS(OS)No.442/2013, wherein an order dated 12.11.2014 was passed on an
  interim application, directing the defendant therein to pay royalty at
  certain rate to the plaintiff for sales made in India for various
  periods. It is submitted that in the course of arguments in the
  aforesaid application filed in CS(OS) No.442/2013, the plaintiff had
  produced 26 licence agreements for the perusal of the court, under the
  confidentiality clause and they had also prepared a tabulated statement
  of the royalties being received under the said licence agreements which
  information was shared with the counsel for the other side during the
  hearing, while taking back the document after perusal. He explains that
  his clients are under a legal obligation to adhere to the confidentiality
  clause, but they would be willing to produce the licence agreements with
  other companies worldwide for the court?s scrutiny, along with a
  tabulated statement.
  
  CS(OS) 764/2015 Page 2 of 3
  
  
  
  3. On the next date of hearing, counsel for the plaintiff shall come
  prepared with instructions with regard to the revised royalties effective
  from 2014.
  
  4. In the meantime, both the parties are agreeable that without
  prejudice to their rights and contentions, the briefing counsels along
  with their respective clients shall have a meeting to try and resolve the
  dispute raised in the suit.
  
  5. List on 26th March, 2015.
  
  
  
  
  
  HIMA KOHLI, J
  
  MARCH 24, 2015
  
  sk
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 764/2015 Page 3 of 3
  
  
  
  1