Patent Infringement and Standard Essential Patents in India

Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are patents that cover technology included in technical standards set by standards-setting organisations. Examples include patents covering 3G, 4G, DVD, and Wi-Fi technology. When a patent covers a standard that has been declared essential to implementing that standard, it becomes a powerful asset but also subject to unique constraints. In January 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered an important judgment concerning SEP enforcement and royalty payments in the context of DVD technology. This article explains the framework governing SEPs in India and the implications of the recent judgment for technology companies and manufacturers.

What Are Standard Essential Patents

A Standard Essential Patent is a patent that covers technology essential to practicing a technical standard. For example, if a standards body like the DVD Consortium declares that EFM+ technology (a data encoding method) is essential for DVD manufacture, and if this technology is protected by a patent, that patent becomes a SEP. By definition, any manufacturer seeking to comply with the standard must use or license the technology covered by the SEP. This creates a unique tension. On one hand, the patent holder has the right to exclude others from using the patented technology. On the other hand, if the patent is essential to a standard that has achieved widespread adoption, refusing to license it could harm competition and innovation. To address this tension, standards bodies typically require SEP holders to commit to licensing their patents on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

The January 2026 Delhi High Court Judgment

The Delhi High Court examined a case involving Koninklijke Philips N.V., owner of Indian Patent IN 218255, covering EFM+ technology used in DVDs. Philips sought to enforce the patent and collect royalties from manufacturers. The Court issued a stay on the execution of a money decree, thereby temporarily halting Philips' ability to enforce the judgment and recover royalties. The judgment suggests that courts will scrutinise SEP enforcement carefully, particularly where the licensor has made FRAND commitments. The implication is that SEP holders cannot rely on the mere existence of the patent to exact whatever royalty they wish; they must demonstrate that proposed royalty rates are indeed fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. This places the burden on the patent holder to justify its licensing terms.

FRAND Obligations and Licencing

FRAND commitments impose specific obligations on SEP holders. Fair means the royalty should be proportionate to the actual contribution of the patent to the standard and not inflated merely because the patent is essential. Reasonable means the rate should allow manufacturers a reasonable profit margin while enabling the patent holder to recover its investment. Non-Discriminatory means the patent holder cannot charge different rates to different manufacturers for the same license. Courts now examine these factors carefully before enforcing SEP royalties. If you are a manufacturer using a standard that involves SEPs and the holder demands high royalties, you can challenge the demand on the basis that it violates FRAND obligations. Conversely, if you hold a SEP and seek to license it, document that your proposed rates comply with FRAND principles. Engage a licensing specialist to assess your rates relative to industry practice and the nature of the technology.

Practical Strategies for Patent Disputes Involving SEPs

If you are facing an SEP infringement claim, first determine whether the patent holder has made a FRAND commitment. If so, assert that you have an entitlement to a license on FRAND terms and challenge any proposed royalty rate as exceeding what is fair and reasonable. Research comparable licenses for similar technology and present benchmarking data to the court. If you are an SEP holder seeking to enforce your patent, ensure that your licensing terms are defensible as FRAND-compliant. Document the factors that support your proposed royalty rate. Consult with a licensing expert to ensure that your rates are aligned with market practice. Avoid taking aggressive positions that courts might view as an attempt to exploit the essential nature of the technology. The Indian courts, as evidenced by the January 2026 judgment, will scrutinise SEP enforcement and protect legitimate manufacturers from unreasonable demands.

Conclusion

SEP enforcement in India is now moving towards a more sophisticated framework where FRAND commitments are taken seriously and royalty rates are scrutinised. This protects manufacturers from exploitation while ensuring that SEP holders can still recover reasonable returns on their innovations. If you are involved in a SEP dispute, engage a specialist patent lawyer to navigate the nuances of FRAND analysis.