In a detailed judgement, the Court also held that Indian courts have the powers to pass a pro-tem order if the facts warrant the same.
“Consequently, to balance the equities between the parties, this Court has the power, if the facts so warrant, to pass a pro-tem order being a temporary arrangement without a detailed exploration of merits. This view, according to the Court, promotes a modernized and fair patent system, encourages ingenuity, creativity and intellectual activity as well as provides for a conducive environment for knowledge transfer. Needless to state that the nature of pro-tem security/deposit order as well as interim order will necessarily depend on the factual matrix of each case,” the division bench said.
It further stared that a pro-tem security order cannot be likened to an injunction order because unlike an injunction order, it does not stop or prevent the manufacture and sale of the infringing devices.
“The intent of a pro-tem security order is to either ensure maintenance of status-quo or to retain the Courts’ power and ability to pass appropriate relief at the time of disposal of the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 or at the final stage. In the facts of the present case, the pro-tem security order does not confer any advantage upon Nokia as it only balances the asymmetric advantage that an implementer has over a Standard Essential Patent holder,” the Court ruled.
Source: Barandbench
