The Delhi High Court, in its common judgement dated September 22, 2025, in Nokia Technologies OY vs Asustek Computer Inc. & Anr., Nokia Technologies OY vs Acer Inc. & Anr., and Nokia Technologies OY vs Hisense Group & Anr. [CS(COMM) 643/2025, 644/2025, 645/2025; 2025:DHC:8511], has delivered an important ruling on the constitution of Confidentiality Clubs (CCs) in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation. The Delhi High Court examined the balance between protecting sensitive licensing data and ensuring Defendants have a rightful opportunity to test the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) nature of the Plaintiff’s licensing offers.

The judgment turned on four contentious conditions proposed by Nokia: exclusion of in-house representatives from the CC, imposition of a “limited-licensing restriction”, liberty to redact confidential licence terms, and selective disclosure of comparable licences.

1. Inclusion of In-House Representatives

Nokia’s position

Nokia had initially proposed to exclude in-house representatives from the CC. Over the course of arguments, they agreed for the inclusion of in-house representatives but proposed to restrict membership to those already part of the CC in parallel foreign proceedings before the UPC Munich. Their concern was that giving broader access to commercially sensitive information would disseminate confidential information.

Defendants’ position

The Defendants countered that in-house participation is standard practice in SEP disputes. They pointed to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in InterDigital vs Xiaomi [2020:DHC:3598], which had already settled that in-house representatives can be part of CCs. They also relied on Nokia Technology OY vs Lenovo Group Ltd. & Anr. [CS(COMM) 581/2019], where Nokia itself had accepted such inclusion without objection. They contended that the choice of a representative rests exclusively with the Defendant, and the nomination is decided based on the organisational structure, jurisdictional requirement and internal authorizations.

Court’s analysis

The Court observed that the controversy was largely academic, since Nokia eventually conceded in-house participation. However, the Court went further to clarify that:

• In SEP suits, exclusion of in-house representatives has no legal basis. The Court emphasised that the Xiaomi decision conclusively settled the issue by recognising Defendants’ right to include their in-house representatives in CCs.
• Nokia and the Defendants were already engaged in foreign SEP litigation, where the in-house representatives had access to the same confidential information. Denying them access in India would be futile and inconsistent.

On the proposed restriction on membership, the Court explained that:  

• As a general rule, Defendants enjoy the discretion to nominate their own in-house representatives. However, in this case, the Defendants had pleaded that they had only a limited pool of qualified licensing personnel and three of their in-house representatives were already members of the CC before the UPC at Munich, with access to identical confidential material. In these circumstances, the Court found Nokia’s request to replicate the same personnel reasonable, as it struck a balance between safeguarding sensitive information and ensuring Defendants were not handicapped.

Court’s direction

The Court ordered replication of the same three in-house representatives who were part of the foreign CCs.

2. Limited-Licensing Restriction

Nokia’s position

As a compromise, Nokia proposed that if in-house representatives were included, they should be barred from participating in licensing negotiations with third parties whose agreements were disclosed in the CC, for a period of two years. This was modelled on the decision in InterDigital vs Oppo [2024:DHC:7244] and consent order in InterDigital vs Oppo [CS (COMM) 692/2021] where parties voluntarily adopted a similar restriction. They asserted that this additional safeguard was necessary to prevent misuse of sensitive data.

Defendants’ position

The Defendants asserted that this condition was onerous and arbitrary. They argued that:

• Nokia had not sought this restriction in the corresponding foreign proceedings.
• Imposing it in India would unfairly handicap their already small licensing teams and disrupt ongoing negotiations with other parties.

Court’s analysis

Here, the Court carefully weighed Nokia’s concern of prejudice against the Defendants’ practical concerns as follows:

• The Court noted that Nokia had not demonstrated how access by in-house representatives would concretely harm third-party licensees, beyond a presumption of prejudice.
• The Court pointed out Nokia’s inconsistency: in foreign proceedings before the UPC and German Courts, they had accepted disclosure to the same in-house representatives without this restriction. Imposing it in India alone appeared arbitrary to the Court.
• The Court distinguished the Oppo order relied on by Nokia, explaining that it was a consent order and also reflected similar restrictions in parallel foreign litigation. Thus, the said order could not justify imposing a unilateral restraint in the instant case.

Court’s direction

The Court rejected Nokia’s two-year restriction and crafted a middle path:

• In-house representatives must disclose their access to confidential licences to any third-party licensee with whom they later negotiate.
• Nokia may also inform its licensees that the agreements were shared with the Defendants’ in-house representatives.

3. Redaction of Confidential Documents

Nokia’s position

Nokia sought liberty to file redacted versions of third-party comparable license agreements, arguing that parties have the right to withhold irrelevant portions. They relied on InterDigital vs Xiaomi [2020:DHC:3598] and Philips vs Vivo Mobile [CS(COMM) 383/2020], where Courts recognised limited redactions as permissible.

Defendants’ position

The Defendants opposed blanket redactions, arguing that Nokia might redact important data such as royalty rates, discounts, or territorial carve-outs which are details essential to assess whether the licensing terms are on FRAND basis. They cited Xiaomi and Unilin Beheer B.V. vs Balaji Action Buildwell [CS(COMM) 1683/2016], stressing that at minimum, counsels in the CC must see unredacted versions to advise the Court on relevance.

Court’s analysis

The Court reiterated the principle from Xiaomi: redaction is permissible only in respect of terms agreed to be confidential between Nokia and its licensees, and not those central to FRAND assessment. Provided Nokia does not rely on them.

Court’s direction

Nokia was permitted to redact only non-material terms. To ensure checks and balances, unredacted versions were directed to be deposited with the Registrar General in a sealed cover, accessible to the Defendants’ counsels who are members of the CC (but not their in-house representatives who are members of the CC). In case of any dispute, Defendants could seek disclosure on a document-to-document basis.

4. Disclosure of all ‘Video SEP’ Licenses by Nokia

Defendants’ position

The Defendants demanded disclosure of all comparable licences to the CC, past and present, whether based on lump-sum or royalty models, so that the FRAND inquiry would not be skewed by selective disclosure.

Nokia’s position

Nokia opposed the disclosure by arguing that the demand exceeded the scope of the instant application (filed under Rule 11 of High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 read with Chapter VII, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018).

Court’s analysis

The Court held that selective disclosure undermines the very purpose of CCs. If only handpicked licences are shown, Defendants cannot test whether the offered royalty rates are discriminatory. Full disclosure is therefore essential to maintain the integrity of FRAND adjudication. The Court refused to postpone the issue, treating it as squarely linked to the instant application.

Court’s direction

Nokia was directed to disclose all comparable licences, ensuring transparency and parity in SEP licensing disputes.