ericsson vs xiaomi case study

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Patent Litigation of Xiaomi and Ericsson Came To End

Ericsson confirmed to IAM that Xiaomi and Ericsson have signed a global patent license agreement, and the two sides ‘shook hands’ at the Delhi High Court in India. So far , the patent litigation of Xiaomi and Ericsson has come to an end.

Patent litigation of Ericsson and Xiaomi dates back to 2014. Ericsson filed a lawsuit on December 5, 2014, prosecuting Xiaomi for infringement. On December 8, the same year, India’s Delhi High Court ruled that Xiaomi violated Ericsson’s eight standard essential patents, and issued a pre-sale ban. After, the Delhi Court of India granted Xiaomi a ‘temporary license’ to continue to sell a Qualcomm-based smartphone, the Redmi 1S in India. Xiaomi pre-paid 100 rupees ($1.41) per device for court deposit.

Gizchina News of the week

In December 2015, Ericsson reiterated its tough attitude with the Xiaomi lawsuit, stating that ‘this lawsuit is still in progress and Ericsson’s position remains unchanged. Xiaomi, like other global smartphone manufacturers, needs our authorization to use our patents.’

That time many experts were pointing out that the Ericsson lawsuit is just a part of a bigger problem for Xiaomi. The company lags behind other big players in the industry with its lack of patents. In 2014, the company applied for 2,318 patents, which is still a relatively conservative number. In comparison, Samsung has 11,877 invention patents just in China alone. However, this didn’t go viral.

Also Rea d: OPPO And Ericsson Signed Multi-Year Global Patent License Agreement

At the beginning of 2018, two sides had reconciled. On June 15, the same year, Ericsson China responded that the patent lawsuit with Xiaomi was still in progress.

On October 15, 2019, Xiaomi shook hands with Ericsson, and the five-year patent litigation came to an end.

Previous Samsung is rolling out November 2019 security patch to the Galaxy S10

Next huawei nova 6 surfaces in 3c certification, features 40w fast charging.

About the author Argam Artashyan Back in 2010, he was dismissed from his position as a lecturer at the university. This made him get another job at his friend’s digital marketing company as a blog writer. After a few years, when he was thinking the article writing is his mission, Google pushed the Panda update and affected the company and websites he was working at. (Un)fortunately and surprisingly, he got an offer to head a large knitting factory. In 2016, he got his Ph.D. and resumed teaching at the University … and writing tech-related articles following his passion.

Related Posts

Xiaomi 12T Pro special edition has a sculptural appearance

Xiaomi granted a new pop-up design patent

Xiaomi POCO C50 is set to launch at the end of November

Xiaomi 13 leaked specifications hint at a new rear-mounted camera

Analysis of two injunctions by Delhi HC – Ericsson v. Xiomi Tech. & Micromax v. Oneplus Tech.

By Srinivas Atreya Chatti

The past few weeks have seen some interesting developments in the realm of technology and intellectual property laws with both foreign and domestic mobile phone/technology manufacturers aggressively resorting to courts in an increasingly competitive Indian mobile phone market space. The recent Orders passed by Delhi High Court in two separate cases, both involving mobile phone manufacturers, are noteworthy and significant for several reasons both from a commercial as well as a legal standpoint. Although both cases discussed and considered distinct issues, similar reliefs in the form of injunctions were sought and granted. Moreover, the impact of these orders converges on more than one level and is bound to have an effect on the future course of intellectual property and technology laws. Going even further, these cases also highlight a fascinating interplay and interpretation of TRIPS with the domestic Intellectual Property Laws, while also the application of Civil Procedure Code and Laws of Injunction. From a broader perspective, these decisions come in the light of growing competition in the Indian mobile phone industry/market especially as smaller or newer entrants in the Indian market have started to compete and affect the market shares of larger already established entities.

In the case of  Ericsson   v. Xiomi Tech. , the Delhi High Court by an Order dated 8 th  December 2014 [3] granted  ex-parte  injunction against a Chinese mobile phone manufacturer, Xiaomi for infringement of the Swedish technology giant Ericsson’s patents. The  ex-parte  order injuncted Xiaomi from selling, advertising, manufacturing or importing devices using technologies that infringe the certain Standard Essential Patents (“ SEP ”) of Ericsson in India. It also directed the imports of the products in question be stopped by customs officials under the IPR Rules, 2007 and local commissioners were also appointed to visit the Xiaomi’s offices to ensure the implementation of these orders. Subsequently, Xiaomi on appeal against the aforesaid Order of the single judge and received some respite when the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 16 th  December 2014 conditionally allowed Xiaomi to sell their devices until February, 2015. The Order among several other conditions stipulates that Xiamoi can sell only those devices which use chipsets made by particular manufacturer which is a licensee of the Ericsson.

The patents in question relate to Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband (AMR), 3G and EDGE technologies and fall under a class of patents called SEPs. A patent that protects technology essential to a standard is called SEP. These SEPs are indispensable while manufacturing standard-compliant products such as smart-phones or tablets. Patents that are considered essential to execute a specific industry standard cannot be exploited like any other patent, and certainly not to the elimination of other market participants.

Standards are by and large set by Standard-Setting Organizations (“ SSOs” ). These SSOs generally require a declaration of essentiality from the patent owner himself. This declaration is often coupled with an affirmation of the Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“ FRAND ”) terms as a licensing commitment.

For the standard setting practice to remain beneficial and not be reduced to a mere farce, it becomes imperative that in situations where adopting a standard would include integration of a patent into the industry standard, the patent holder should not be in a position to irrationally abuse its market power to the loss of the entire industry, for instance, by charging an inflated royalty rate. In today’s information age where electronic and communication devices are ubiquitous, SEP’s hold great importance as it would be impossible otherwise to manufacture standard-compliant electronic and communication devices such as smart phones or tablets.

With increasing litigation in other jurisdictions across the world with regard to SEP’s, one prevailing opinion is that when an asserted patent is an SEP encumbered with a FRAND licensing commitment, the patent holder should be prevented from obtaining injunctive relief. Otherwise, it is argued that the patent holder can use the threat of an injunction to extract unfairly high royalties and impede implementation of the standard. On the other hand, patent-holders have argued that a blanket rule barring injunctive relief for FRAND-encumbered SEPs fails to take into account the fact-specific nature of FRAND commitments, fundamentally alters the dynamics of negotiating the specific details of a FRAND license, and erodes the commercial value of these SEPs. [4]

Even in the present case, although the injunction was conditionally relaxed subsequently, it is pertinent at this point that the patents, which are presently the subject matter of this dispute, may also form subject matters of other litigations which Ericsson had earlier initiated against other Indian mobile phone manufacturers including Micromax, Gionee and Intex. One independent view in this regard is that when the same patents are potentially in question under other cases as well, there is no need for the Courts to rush to grant an injunction against a new defendant. At this stage however, it will be interesting to observe the case as it pans out especially in the shadow of the earlier Erricson-Micromax dispute and the final decision is sure have a far reaching impact on the scope and future development of SEP’s in India.

In the other recent development involving mobile phone manufactures, the Delhi High Court in the case of  Micormax v. Oneplus Tech.  passed an order restraining another Chinese manufacturer, OnePlus from marketing or selling devices using ‘Cyanogen’ mark in India. CyanogenMod is a modified version of the popular mobile operating system Android developed by Cyanogen, a software developer based out of California.

The Delhi High Court on 16 th  December passed an Order [5]  of injunction against OnePlus which is a new entrant in the Indian market restraining them from marketing, selling and shipping its devices in India on the ground that Micromax has the exclusive rights to use the ‘CyanogenMod’ operating system by virtue of an exclusivity agreement with its developer Cyanogen. The Court on perusal of the provisions of the ‘Ambient Services and Application Distributions Agreement’ between Micromax and Cyanogen (which gives Micromax exclusive license to distribute the Cyanogen OS in the Indian subcontinent region) upheld the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the agreement between Micormax and Cyanogen. . Earlier, OnePlus had filed a suit for injunction against the Micromax on the basis of a purported Trademark License Agreement with Cyanogen, for restraining Micromax from instituting proceedings in India. However, the Court in the present case held that that the exclusivity agreement between Micromax and Cyanogen would outweigh the non-exclusive trademark agreement between the OnePlus and Cyanogen. [6]

In conclusion, a brief perusal of these two cases summarily raises several important issues which will eventually have to be decided sooner or later. Firstly, the  Xiaomi  case re-highlights the use of patent laws by patent holders to sometimes extract large sums of royalties and license fees for use of their technologies which signals the need to re-visit the concept of patent pools in especially for smaller or emerging manufacturers especially in emerging markets like India. Further, the growing practice of Indian Courts granting injunctions in patent cases which even involve technologies using SEP licensed under FRAND may also be a cause for some concern [7] . The  OnePlus  case while largely being a contractual dispute, however may turn up some interesting arguments as the case progresses with regard to the interpretation and applicability of trademark laws in India and the scope of trademark claims. Another aspect which could pervade public debate would be the impact the case could have on future manufacturers entering the burgeoning Indian market.

[1]   Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson(PUBL) v. Xiomi Technolgy & Ors.,CS(OS) 3775/2014, Order dt. 08.12.2014 of Delhi High Court

[2]   Micromax Infromatics Ltd. v. Shenzen Oneplus Technology Co. Ltd. & Ors., CS(OS) 3761/2014, Order dt. 16.12.2014

[3]   http://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Order-dt.-08.12.14-Telefonaktiebolaget.pdf  (Copy of Order)

[4]   Supra

[5]   http://www.scribd.com/doc/250369568/Micromax-Limited-v-Shenzhen-OnePlus  (Order Copy)

[6]   http://barandbench.com/content/212/senior-advocate-rajiv-nayar-elp-lawyers-secure-injunction#.VJQaisABA

[7]   http://spicyip.com/2014/12/frand-ly-injunctions-from-india-has-ex-parte-become-the-standard.html

Comments are closed.

Get in touch with us

• UK & Ireland

How is this helpful for me?

• Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
• Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
• Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
• The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

• ON OFF Text Highlighter

Report a problem

For the Appellants : Mr. Kapil Sibal

Sr. Advocate and Mr. Chetan Sharma

Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr. Ajit Worrier

Mr. Nitin Masilamani

Mr. Aashish Gupta

Ms. Shreya Munoth and Mr. Adit Pujari

Advocates. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajiv Nayar

Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh

Sr. Advocates instructed by Mrs. Saya Choudhary Kapur

Mr. Ashutosh Kumar

Mr. B. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Saurav Anand

Pradeep Nandrajog

Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

• Xiaomi Technology And Ors. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson Publ And Ors. Delhi High Court Dec 16, 2014
• Subsequent References
• CaseIQ (AI Recommendations)

Xiaomi Technology And Ors. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson Publ And Ors.

Caveat 1112/2014

Respondent No. 1 - the caveator appears through counsel as above and hence the caveat is discharged.

CM No. 20650/2014, CM No. 20652/2014, CM No. 20651/2014 and CM No. 20649/2014

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

FAO(OS) 522/2014

1. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The appellants are defendants No. 1 and 2. The second respondent is defendant No. 3 in the suit.

2. Parties agree that respondent No. 2 would be a proforma party and thus the appeal would be heard for disposal without issuing notice to respondent No. 2.

3. Counsel for respondent No. 1 waives notice.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We make it clear that the arguments have been restricted to enable the Court to receive such facts which may be relevant for the purposes of passing a pro tern interim order (as distinct from an ad-interim order which has to be passed after hearing the parties on merits in view of the respective pleadings and keeping in view the principles relating to the grant of an interim injunction). The reason for the pro tern order being passing is the sweeping ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed by the learned single Judge against the appellants on December 8, 2014 which has throttled the business of the appellants. Needless to state it is for the learned Single Judge to first decide the controversy between the parties keeping in view the pleadings concerning plaintiffs claim for grant of an injunction pending determination of the issues in the suit.

5. The bedrock stone of the suit filed by the first respondent, is patent(s) No. IN2033034, IN203036, IN234157, IN203686, IN213723, IN229632, IN240471 and IN241747 . The plaintiff alleges that the appellants are infringing the patent(s). The averments concerning alleged infringement analysis are to be found in paragraph 29 onwards till paragraph 36 of the plaint.

6. The grievance in the appeal is one of suppression of material facts. As per the appellants the chip containing the technology of the patentee i.e. the plaintiff is being sourced by the appellants from a company called ‘Qualcomm Incorporated’. The appellants rely upon a communication sent by e-mail to said company querying whether the said company has a right to, in turn permit the appellants, from using the chip manufactured by the said company as a licensee of the plaintiff. The-mail dated December 14, 2014 has been placed before us at page 191 and 192 of the appeal paper book. The response thereto is at page 193 of the appeal paper book. The reply of Qualcomm, at page 193 would evince that as per Qualcomm it has a licence under an agreement with the patentee : Ericsson to use its technology for which it has a patent. As per Qualcomm, the 3G standards are CDMA standards or applications under the agreement and accordingly, any implementation of 3G technology by Xiaomi in devices which implement a Qualcomm chipset is a licensed implementation and does not infringe at least Ericsson’s 3G related patents.

7. The respondent No. 1 would rely upon an e-mail dated December 16, 2014 received by it from Qualcomm informing as under:

“As you may be aware of Ericsson has taken legal action in India against a company called Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd (“Xiaomi”). The suit involves products of Xiaomi incorporating both chipsets of Qual­comm as well as chipsets of third parties (Mediatek). 8 patents have been asserted against Xiaomi relating to e.g. EDGE, AMR for GSM, AMR for WCDMA, WCDMA etc.

I has come to our knowledge that a legal representative of Qualcomm has confirmed in writing to Xiaomi that the Agreement “covers the 8 patents asserted by Ericsson in the suit against Xiaomi”. See e-mail confirmation by John Scott of December 14th. Apart from considering the confidentiality obligations of Qualcomm in respect of the terms and conditions, the statement made is incorrect and misrepresenting the facts of the agreement in between our companies and could potentially harm Ericsson irreparably.

"Please, by immediate return e-mail, withdraw the statement made. Absent such withdrawal, Ericsson will be forced to consider its relevant options under the Agreement, as well as any other legal rights it may have as a consequence."

8. The narrative of the above noted facts would evince that the dispute between the parties concerning the issue of suppression would not warrant any analysis of the infringement data relied upon in the plaint. The limited area of this dispute would be : Whether the use of the chipset sourced by the appellants from Qualcomm would be in terms of the license agreement which Qualcomm has from the patentee i.e. Ericsson. This issue would simply relate to interpreting the agreement between Ericsson and Qualcomm and perhaps the agreement under which the appellants is sourcing the chipsets from Qualcomm.

9. At this stage a word of caution with respect to the intent and purport of the present order needs to be penned.

10. Since we have indicated to the parties that we would be working out a pro tern measure and simultaneously requesting the learned single Judge to decide appellants’ application for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, concerning suppression of material facts, any other issue relating to the right of the patentee, which would require a prima facie view to be taken with respect to the data analysis of the technology used by the appellants vis-a-vis the technology in which patent rights are claimed by the respondent, would have to wait hearing at a later stage for the purpose of deciding the application seeking an interim measure.

"11. Thus, our present order would be restricted only to such devices which the appellants import as are fitted with the chipset manufactured by Qualcomm and no other chipset. To said extent i.e. on the terms of the present order as hereinafter recorded, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would be superseded."

12. We are passing the pro tem order keeping in view the fact that treating the averments in the plaint to be true, the adverse effect upon the first respondent would be the finances which would otherwise flow to the coffers of the first respondent if ultimately it is found that the appellants is infringing the patent of the first respondent. The measure of the infringement would be the amount which the appellants would then have to pay to the first respondent as per policy of the first respondent while granting licenses. It is trite that the measure of damages for infringement of a patent would be the revenue loss to the patentee which it would have got by way of royalty while granting the license.

13. Striking a balance between the right of the appellants, which even as per the plaint, is concededly in business in India since July, 2014, we dispose of the appeal directing that as a pro tem measure the appellants would be permitted to import and sell the devices containing chipsets sold to it by Qualcomm upon the following terms:

(1) The pro tem measure would be restricted to import and sale of devices in which Qualcomm chipsets are used.

(2) By January 5, 2015, ?100 per device imported would be deposited in the name of the Registrar General of this Court by the appellants, which would be kept in a fixed deposit by the Registrar General; term of the deposit being three months.

(3) Affidavit would be filed by January 5, 2015 disclosing the import of devices in India containing chipset of Qualcomm pursuant to the present order.

(4) Particulars of invoices of purchase of chipsets from Qualcomm shall be disclosed in the affidavit.

(5) Imports made in the month of January, 2015 would likewise be disclosed by way of an affidavit and Rs. 100/- per device deposited in the name of the Registrar General of this Court by February 03, 2015.

14. Upon the appellants filing an application before the learned single Judge under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Single Judge would at the first instance consider arguments concerning suppression of relevant facts as alleged by the appellants against the first respondent, and should the appellants raise other issues, the decision thereon for purposes of an interim order would be severed. The application shall be filed by December 20, 2014 and the reply thereto shall be filed by January 03, 2015. The rejoinder would be filed before the next date of hearing before the learned Single Judge which is February 05, 2015, on which date the application shall be listed before Court and the date fixed before the learned Joint Registrar shall be cancelled.

15. Nothing said by us in appeal, in relation to the facts or Rs. 100/-required to be deposited per sale of device imported would not be treated as an expression of merits of the claims of the parties or the quantification of the royalty by the Division Bench. Such facts which we have noted above are necessary to form the backdrop for the pro tern measure we have directed.

16. The appeal is disposed of in terms above without any order as to costs. Dasti under signature of the Court Master to counsel for the parties.

CM No. 20720/2014 (stay)

Since the appeal has been disposed of by passing a pro tern order, the instant application which seeks stay of the operation of the impugned order is disposed of as infructuous.

_______________

Edit Citation

• Distinguished
• Referencing
• Uncategorized

Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.

Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change.

Add Equivalent Citation

Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment.

Select Preference

Share the Judgment

Are you sure?

By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us. Leave your message here.

Click here to remove this judgment from your profile.

De-Coding Indian Intellectual Property Law

DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part

“The ground of concealment as urged by the applicants needs to be accepted to the extent of the two patents relating to CDMA applications. Accordingly, the interim order dated December 8, 2014 in so far as it relates to two patents IN229632, IN240471 (3G patents) is vacated.”

Disclaimer: I represent several clients in matters related to SEPs / FRAND and against Ericsson.

I found it useful to highlight the editor’s note because of its prophetic nature.  Patent matters are complex, and injunctions should not be the norm.  In the normal course of collecting compensation for patents that are not encumbered by a FRAND promise, patent owners must prove infringement on a claim by claim basis for each patent, and in the course of such an assertion withstand challenges such as validity and enforceability.  Once this threshold is met, i.e. the patent is proved to be valid and infringed, only then is the inquiry conducted for damages.  This is once again done on a patent-by-patent basis. However, in some interim matters, patent have been presumed to be valid, and infringed, and essentiality is presumed because the patentee claims that other entities have taken a license to the SEPs.

SEP owners should not be given any special status and placed along with normal patent owners.   Traditional legal rules and burdens of proof should apply to them equally .  Just because the patent owner participated in the standard setting process and self-declared hundreds of patents to be essential does not mean that (i) burden of proof requirements are waived for them, or (ii) they can stake a special claim to royalties on an end product when their patents (alleged SEPs) may at most be implicated in a miniscule component of the end product, both according to price and size parameters. In short, SEP owners are not entitled to a higher legal pedestal.

Before the DB, Xiaomi had argued that Ericsson was not entitled to an injunction, because Xiaomi already had a license from Qualcomm which in turn had a license with Ericsson, i.e. Xiaomi was paying Qualcomm some royalty (lets call it X), and Qualcomm by virtue of its licensing arrangement with Ericsson, was paying Ericsson a royalty (not the same as X). Ericsson had concealed this information before the single judge, and hence the injunction issued.  The DB ordered that this was a matter of trial, and allowed Xiaomi to sell subject to certain conditions, etc.

After trial, the single judge came to the conclusion that Ericsson had indeed concealed information pertaining to two patents and appropriately vacated the order of December 8, 2014.  

In my view, because an injunction is an equitable relief, the entire order of December 8, 2014 should have been vacated, as Ericsson concealed information that was relevant.  In all probability, the judge would not have granted the injunction, if made aware of this issue.

There is also the aspect of double dipping – If Xiaomi paid Qualcomm, Qualcomm paid Ericsson – Ericsson cannot claim again from Xiaomi.  This is a very serious issue – it reflects the possible misuse of NDAs to obfuscate information, and in particular a money claim.  Also because Qualcomm is a chipset provider, it punches a big hole into several theories.

Options available to Xiaomi :  In my view, they should immediately appeal the judgment – the impact of concealment can’t be limited to two patents.  Will the Court now bifurcate and return payments received for the 3G patents?  Importantly, how will the court return the Defendant to the same position it was before the injunction issues – even assuming it was for 2 patents only?  To add to the confusion, Xiaomi’s claim regarding AMR patents being used for 3G is also plausible. Hence the tally becomes 7 (5 AMR + 2 3G patents), i.e 7/8 patents are out of reckoning.

Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the very important issue of not issuing an injunction in patent matters, and  making patent owners prove infringement on a claim by claim basis for each patent, and in the course of such an assertion withstand challenges such as validity and enforceability.

Note: CDMA in the judgement is a typo – it should be WCDMA or more technically UMTS, both of which are 3G.

• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

About The Author

Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

Related posts, some thoughts on the “fairness” of the delhi high court’s ericsson-lava frand determination- part ii, looking for the reasons in the delhi high court’s frand determination in the ericsson- lava sep case- part i, delhi high court imposes damages worth inr 244 crores on lava in the ericsson-lava sep dispute, analysis of february 2024 delhi high court judgment in interdigital v. oppo – ii, leave a comment cancel reply.

I landed on this article via a google search on the Selfdot case. This is a belter of a written…

please describe the impact on consumers in these IP litigations.

Seems like a one-sided commentary. From the decision, one understands the fine was imposed pursuant to Section 119 of the…

On the Macleods Pharmaceuticals case, I have never seen such a strange argument made on the effect of revocation or…

Thank you for sharing this. The notification is strikingly similar to the AP case. On a quick glance though, it…

Copyright © 2024 SpicyIP

Discover more from SpicyIP

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Xiaomi one of many companies sued by Ericsson

It is ironic that the company responsible for stopping Chinese smartphone company Xiaomi in its tracks in India was neither a local nor global smartphone competitor, but in fact a company that exited the phone manufacturing business many years ago.

Swedish company Ericsson alleges that Xiaomi has been violating eight of its patents related to to 3G, EDGE, AMR, and other technologies, and that its repeated communications to the Chinese company to pay royalties or to desist altogether went unheeded. Hence, it decided to lodge a suit in Delhi's High Court.

How bad is this for Xiaomi? On the surface of it, pretty grim in the short run, considering the company snatched 1.5 percent market share in India in a hard-to-believe time span of two months, and is continuing on a blistering pace to ensure its dominance in the Indian market, which is growing at the fastest pace in the world -- one that Xiaomi considers second only to China in importance. Only one other company has been able to create such an impact in the Indian market, namely Motorola, and its 5 percent share took it at least nine months.

By contrast, Xiaomi's devices have sold only on the internet and in meagre amounts -- a fraction of the total they will eventually end up flogging in India. These flash sales are typical of Xiaomi when it wants to test the potential of the market prior to a full onslaught. Just last week, Xiaomi sold 75,000 Redmi Note devices in under eight seconds, and its super smartphones, the Mi3 and low-cost Red Mi 1S, have disappeared from stocks in mere seconds in the past. The company even rebranded itself with the moniker "Mi India" so that Indians wouldn't have to grapple with an unwieldy name.

Naturally, Xiaomi will have to sort its current patent imbroglio pretty quickly if it has any hopes of continuing its dream Indian run. A Reuters article that appeared on Monday in both Mint newspaper and the Economic Times refers to unnamed sources, who point out that Xiaomi leadership has known for years that it is vulnerable to patent lawsuits, and that this has in part explained why it decided to expand mainly in Asia first. Apparently, it has already got involved with IP issues with home-grown Chinese firms in areas such as streaming TV, and it is going to face a very tough road ahead at home, since its biggest rivals Huawei and ZTE are holders of some of the largest telecom patents in the world.

For now, however, its most pressing headache lies across the border in neighbouring India, and while things appear to be momentarily bleak, Xiaomi can take succour from the fact that it isn't exactly the first company to be nailed by Ericsson. Ericsson may not be a dominant force in smartphone manufacturing anymore, but it makes up for that by being a formidable force in wireless technology, and holds 33,000 patents, 400 of them in India.

And it's not going to lie down and roll over if it thinks another company is utilising one of its technologies without paying. In early 2013, Indian smartphone leader Micromax was hauled to court by the Swedish company for infringing on eight of its wireless technology patents.

The Delhi High Court, in an ex-parte interim junction, ordered the company to fork out a percentage of sales in the form of royalties that uses these technologies until 2015. Micromax, in turn, said that Ericsson failed to uphold to the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms that would have been part of the agreement.

Then, in January this year, the Competition Commission of India began investigating another Ericsson complaint against Indian smartphone maker Intex.

The biggest case that Ericsson has filed so far of a similar nature was against Samsung a few years ago, when it accused the South Korean company of 24 patent infringements, including one that dealt with the digital conversion of speech. Samsung claimed that Ericsson was asking for an unreasonable amount in royalties, but eventually settled in January 2014, positively impacting the Ericsson bottom line by $500 million and signalling that Ericsson is going to recoup billions of dollars over the years from Samsung, thanks to its wireless patents.

If Xiaomi knows what's best for it, it would do well to reach a settlement as quickly as possible with Ericsson and then carry on with the business it knows best; wooing the hearts, minds, and wallets of Indian consumers.

The work laptop I recommend to most people is not made by Apple or Lenovo

7 reasons i use copilot instead of chatgpt, why i travel with bose's quietcomfort ultra headphones instead of the sony xm5.

• Smartphones

Delhi High Court Imposes Sanctions on Xiaomi over Ericsson Patent Infringement Case; Phone Sales Banned in India

Swedish telecommunication giant ericsson has dealt a severe blow to popular chinese smartphone maker xiaomi with delhi high court, ordering suspension of mobile phone sales in india..

Swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson has given a severe blow to popular Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi with Delhi High Court, ordering immediate suspension of mobile sales in India.

Apparently Xiaomi violated Ericsson's - Standard, Essential Patents (SEPs) which are subject to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms, reported SpicyIP .

And despite Ericsson's persistent requests (numbering six) for a reply to the notice, Xiaomi has been evasive since June 2014. This forced Ericsson to file an injunction in Delhi high court. The court found Xiaomi guilty of 'purported laxity'.

Citing IPR Rules, 2007, the court has reportedly banned the import and sales of Xiaomi phones in India. It is also learnt that the company's e-commerce affiliate, Flipkart is also indicted in the case.

Xiaomi India head Manu Jain in an email reply to NDTV Gadgets  has said that he has not received any official notice as such, but the company will evaluate media reports with its legal team and file appropriate response in the court. He also added that Xiaomi is open to talk with Ericsson to resolve the issue amicably.

Here is the official quote:

"While we haven't received an official notice from the Delhi High Court, our legal team is currently evaluating the situation based on the information we have.

India is a very important market for Xiaomi and we will respond promptly as needed and in full compliance with Indian laws. Moreover, we are open to working with Ericsson to resolve this matter amicably."

It has to be noted that, Ericsson had similar fallout with Indian smartphone maker Micromax as well. In late march, 2013, the Swedish company had sued Micromax for whopping ₹100 crore over patent violation.

[Read More: Ericsson Sues Micromax for ₹100 Crore over Patent Violation ]

Besides Xiaomi and Micromax, Ericsson had filed patent infringement cases against Samsung, Gionee and other smartphone makers.

Credit card data of 17K ICICI Bank users exposed; bank blocks cards, assures compensation

Marathon training secrets revealed in Apple health study: How top finishers prepare

This WhatsApp feature will let you respond quickly to status updates in future

• Personal Finance
• Today's Paper
• Partner Content
• Entertainment
• Social Viral
• Pro Kabaddi League

Ericsson-Xiaomi battle may be heading for a settlement

After landing in controversy last year over patent infringement, xiaomi, was asked to stop the sale of some of its handsets by the delhi high court.

Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems

Huawei banks on own patents to churn out 4g handsets at lower cost, who will gain from xiaomi's loss, after china, can xiaomi rule the indian market too, for the first time ever, indian mobile phone sees contraction in q4 growth, future group takes maggi off its stores' shelves, punjab too orders testing of maggi noodles samples, maruti launches celerio diesel priced up to rs 5.71 lakh, h&m to open first store in india this fall, bharti airtel to issue 10-yr us dollar bonds.

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Jun 03 2015 | 2:13 PM IST

Explore News

• Suzlon Energy Share Price Adani Enterprises Share Price Adani Power Share Price IRFC Share Price Tata Motors Share Price Tata Steel Share Price Yes Bank Share Price Infosys Share Price SBI Share Price Tata Power Share Price HDFC Bank Share Price
• Latest News Company News Market News India News Politics News Cricket News Personal Finance Technology News World News Industry News Education News Opinion Shows Economy News Lifestyle News Health News
• Today's Paper About Us T&C Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Disclaimer Investor Communication GST registration number List Compliance Contact Us Advertise with Us Sitemap Subscribe Careers BS Apps
• Budget 2024 Lok Sabha Election 2024 IPL 2024 Pro Kabaddi League IPL Points Table 2024

Recent Patent Litigation Cases (2014-15): India

• April 29, 2015
• India , IP Litigation , IP Practice in India , News & Updates , patent infringement , Patent Litigation , Patents

Patent Litigation in India has steadily increased over the last 2-3 years. Dramatic swift has been observed in the innovator’s perspective from the mere aspect of the invention to gaining patent protection for their respective invention. Patent owners have adopted an aggressive approach towards their patent protection and enforcing their proprietary rights as businesses, which are now well-positioned in the realm of patent litigation. The patent owners are not at all hesitant to challenge the validity of the patent rights of their rivals. There has also been a gradual increase in the understanding of complex patent infringement and validity issues.

We will now deal with some of the recent and important patent litigation cases in India.

Merck vs. Glenmark over “Sitagliptin”

On an interesting note, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Special Leave Petition filed by Glenmark stayed the Delhi High Court order which passed an injunction against Glenmark for the generic drug Sitagliptin till 28th April 2015. Merck Sharp & Dohme filed an application for an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from using its patented product Sitagliptin (Indian Patent No. 209816) at the Supreme Court. The Delhi high court conclusively held that all three ingredients (Prima facie, Irreparable injury, and balance of convenience) for passing the order of injunction were established by MSD and hence injuncted Glenmark from manufacturing and selling of Zita and Zitamet.

Ericsson vs. Xiaomi

In December 2014, Ericsson had filed a suit against Xiaomi in India for the alleged infringement of the 8 standard-essential patents . The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction on the sale, manufacture, advertisement, and import of Xiaomi’s devices.

Xiaomi claimed that its latest devices in the Indian market (as of December 2014), the Mi3, Redmi1S, and Redmi Note 4G, contained Qualcomm chipsets, which implemented technologies licensed by Ericsson. Xiaomi subsequently challenged the injunction before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which issued temporary orders to allow Xiaomi to resume the sale, import, manufacture, and advertisement of its mobile devices subject to the following conditions:

• Xiaomi would only sell devices having Qualcomm chips.
• Xiaomi would deposit Rs. 100 towards royalty for every device is imported to India from the date of the launch of the device in India to January 5, 2015. This amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit for three months during the proceeding of the case.

Novartis vs. Cipla

In another patent litigation case, the Delhi High court barred Indian generic drugmaker Cipla from making or selling a generic copy of Novartis’s “Onbrez” by giving a temporary injunction to Novartis. Citing the famous Roche vs Cipla case, the court observed that Novartis has a strong prima facia case and as the validity of the patent is not seriously questioned, there is a clear way out to grant an injunction. Further, the court observed that Cipla did not provide any figures about the “inadequacy or shortfall in the supply of the drug.” Earlier Cipla launched its generic version of Indacarterol in October claiming “urgent unmet need” for the drug in India.

Without going conventional way, Cipla also approached the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) to exercise its statutory powers under Section 66 and Section 92 (3) to revoke Indian Patents IN222346, IN230049, IN210047, IN230312, and IN214320 granted to Novartis AG for the drug Indacaterol. Cipla argued on the basis of 3 main points i.e. “epidemic” or a “public health crisis” of COPD, unable to manufacture the same in India by Patentee, and high cost of a patented drug.

Vringo Vs. ZTE

In January 2014, Vringo and Vringo Infrastructure filed a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court against ZTE, over the alleged infringement of its patent IN200572.

In February 2014, the Delhi High court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining ZTE from importing, selling, advertising, installing, or operating devices that comprise the infringing components. The High court also appointed local commissioners to inspect ZTE’s premises and instructed customs authorities to detain ZTE’s shipments that may contain such devices and to notify Vringo. In March 2014, ZTE appealed against the injunction, which was vacated on August 5 the same year with ZTE being ordered to deposit Rs. 17.85 crore to the court.

The suit is sub judice now. As of August 2014, ZTE had filed for the revocation of IN200572 on grounds of it not being innovative as well as for violating some statutory provisions under Section 64 of the Indian Patents Act.

Reference: http://inpublic.globenewswire.com/2014/09/02/VRINGO+PROVIDES+UPDATE+TO+SHAREHOLDERS+HUG1853040.html

Vringo vs. Asus

In April 2014, Vringo filed a patent infringement suit against AsusTek Computer Inc. in Delhi High Court. As per public updates issued by Vringo to its shareholders, Vringo has alleged the infringement of patent IN223183 entitled “Method and system for providing wireless communication using a context for message compression” by Asus in India.

Asus had claimed that in the context of IN 223183 it was using technology licensed to it by Google. In August 2014, Google filed a request to become a party to the proceedings.

Vringo had requested an injunction on Asus’ use of the technology in India. The injunction has not been granted yet. No further information about the lawsuit is publicly available.

SYMED Labs vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

In another case of SYMED Labs vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Symed Labs Ltd. had sued Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Laboratories before the Delhi High Court for allegedly infringing two of its patents: IN213062 & 213063. The first patent was granted for “Novel intermediates for Linezolid and related compounds” while the ‘063 patent was granted for “A novel process for the preparation of linezolid and related compounds. While declaring the judgment on 9 th Jan 2015, the judge convinced that Plaintiff has got a good prima facie case in favor of SYMED. Further, the judge decided that protection to the patent processes ought to be granted to Plaintiff as damages will not be an efficacious remedy. Thus, there will be irreparable loss and injury because of the long uninterrupted use of patents, the balance of convenience also lies in favor of the Plaintiff. Thus the judge granted an ad interim injunction restraining Glenmark from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or directly or indirectly dealing in the production of Linezolid manufactured in a manner so as to result in infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered Patents.

Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. vs Koninklijke Phillips

In this litigation case, Sukesh Behl made a counterclaim for revocation of the suit Patent No. 218255 under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short “the Patents Act”) for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 8. Earlier in another suit Koninklijke Phillips sought for permanent injunction restraining Sukesh Behl from infringing its patent and for other incidental reliefs. While delivering the judgment, the judge answered the question of whether the failure to comply with the requirement of Section 8 of the Patents Act would invariably lead to the revocation of the suit patent under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act, the word “may” employed in Section 64(1) indicates that the provision is a directory and raises a presumption that the power of revocation of patents conferred under Section 64(1) is discretionary. Citing the Chemtura case, the judge holds that the power to revoke a patent under Section 64(1) is discretionary and consequently it is necessary for the Court to consider the question as to whether the omission on the part of the plaintiff was intentional or whether it was a mere clerical and bonafide error. Finally, the judge dismisses the plea of Sukesh Behl for the revocation of a said patent under section 64 (1)(m).

Enercon vs. Dr. Aloys Wobben

In this landmark decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the multiplicity of patent proceeding cases with respect to Invalidation, opposition, and revocation. Dr.Aloys Wobben has filed around 19 infringement suits before the High Court and Enercon India Limited have filed around 23 “revocation petitions” before the Appellate Board, praying for the revocation of the patents held in the name of Dr. Wobben. The respondents had also filed “counterclaims” to the “patent infringement suits” filed by the appellant. Even though some revocation petitions have been settled by the IPAB, the same issues were being re-agitated by Enercon before the High Court. The Supreme Court of India following rules – firstly, if “any person interested” has filed proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, the same would eclipse all similar rights available to the very same person under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act. This would include the right to file a “revocation petition” in the capacity of “any person interested” (under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act), as also, the right to seek the revocation of a patent in the capacity of a defendant through a “counter-claim” (also under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act). Secondly, if a “revocation petition” is filed by “any person interested” in the exercise of the liberty vested in him under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, prior to the institution of an “infringement suit” against him, he would be disentitled in law from seeking the revocation of the patent (on the basis whereof an “infringement suit” has been filed against him) through a “counter-claim”. Clearly, this judgment laid a smooth road for complex patent litigation practices in India.

It would be interesting to note the developments that would take place in the Patent protection scenario in India and the gradual increase in patent litigation cases in India.

Author: Mr. Sitanshu Singh, Patent Associate at IIPRD and can be reached at [email protected]

Related Posts

INTRODUCTION When a woman experiences her period or menstruates, the menstrual cycle begins. A woman's…

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The present case pertains to the widespread illegal mining activity going on in…

ABSTRACT The Adrenaline rushing sport of Formula One is not just a race among the…

• previous post: Role of Documentation in Protecting Traditional Knowledge
• next post: Part 1 of 3: Patent Term Extension laws for Europe and the United States of America: compared and contrasted
• IIPRD Profile
• Corporate Brochure
• Corporate Presentation
• Corporate Induction Video
• Information/Data Security Management
• IP Licensing Services
• Electronics & Software
• Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences
• Mechanical & Green Technologies
• Commercial Evaluation
• Market Research
• Product Design And Prototyping
• Product Entry To Indian Market
• R&D Oriented Tax Advisory
• Patent Preparation
• Patent Illustration & Drawing Services
• Office Action Responses
• Patent Filing and Docketing
• Trademark Prosecution
• Trademark Support
• Patentability Search
• Invalidity Search
• Infringement Search
• Freedom To Operate Search
• Patent Technology Landscape Analysis
• Portfolio Analysis
• Technology Assessment
• White-space Analysis
• Inter Parte Review
• Ex-Parte Review
• Re-Examination Proceedings
• Post-Grant Review
• E-Discovery And Document Review
• Markman Hearing in US
• Patent Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
• Intellectual Property (IP) Valuation
• Importance of Intellectual Property (IP) Audit
• Exemplary Valuation Report
• Sixth International Patent Drafting Competition (IPDC)
• Upcoming Webinars
• Certificate Courses
• Training For Patent Agent Exam 2023
• Upcoming Symposiums
• In-House Corporate Programme
• IP Workshops for Institutes/Universities
• Past Symposium(s)
• Past Webinar(s)
• Representative Work
• Client Login

How Xiaomi Became Successful In India [Xiaomi Case Study]

Devashish Shrivastava

Xiaomi Corporation is a Chinese gadget manufacturer established by Lei Jun in 2010 and headquartered in Beijing. Xiaomi makes and puts resources into cell phones, versatile applications, trimmers, headphones, television, and numerous other products. Ranked 468th, Xiaomi was the most youthful organization on Fortune Global 500 List of 2019.

Xiaomi launched its first cell phone in August 2011 and quickly picked up a piece of the overall industry in China. It became China's biggest cell phone organization in 2014. At the beginning of the second quarter of 2018, Xiaomi was the world's fourth-biggest cell phone manufacturer. Xiaomi later built up a more extensive scope of hardware catalog, including a brilliant home (IoT) gadget ecosystem.

Xiaomi has 15,000 employees in China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore; it is now expanding to different nations like Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Africa. According to Forbes magazine, Lei Jun, the CEO of Xiaomi, has more than $12.5 billion in assets.

Lei Jun is China's eleventh most extravagant individual and 118th in the world. Xiaomi is the world's fourth most important innovative startup in the wake of getting $1.1 billion subsidizing from financial specialists, pegging Xiaomi's valuation at more than $46 billion.

History Of Xiaomi Corporation Business Strategy Of Xiaomi Corporation How Does Xiaomi Prosper And Increase Its Revenue? Business Growth Of Xiaomi Corporation Future Plans Of Xiaomi FAQs

History Of Xiaomi Corporation

Xiaomi was founded in April 2010 by Lei Jun . MIUI, the ROM made by Xiaomi , turned into an immense achievement and has been ported to numerous gadgets. Since 2014, MIUI can be downloaded and installed in more than 200 gadgets in both English and Chinese. By the end of 2013, Xiaomi had more than 30 million MIUI clients around the world, an impressive figure for a youthful organization.

The MIUI ROM isn't as user-friendly as Apple's iOS and gives modern administrations, for example, cloud reinforcement, simple to utilize music player, and an application store. The group at Xiaomi joyfully takes on fan criticism using numerous channels and updates the ROM regularly with bug fixes, improvement, and extra highlights.

In 2011, Xiaomi launched the Mi One phone. Xiaomi just doesn't make its own product, but it fabricates its own equipment. The Mi One was a top-spec phone with signigicant features.

While commentators rush to call the Beijing-based organization "The Apple of China", Xiaomi likes to contrast itself with Amazon. Xiaomi makes ground-breaking equipment which it sells and depends on administration and substance to make up a greater part of its income.

Xiaomi's income in 2013 alone was over $5 billion, very noteworthy for a young organization. There are comparisons between Xiaomi and Apple as both are equipment and programming organizations, both have solid power over stock-chains, and both have a hot fanbase.

Aside from this, the two organizations don't share anything else practically. Apple prices its phones at unbelievable costs and doesn't take on a lot of client input, whereas Xiaomi is polar opposite.

Xiaomi dispatched 7.2 million phones in 2012 and 18.7 million phones in 2013. It even sold more than Apple in one quarter. In the principal quarter of 2014, Xiaomi sold over 11 million phones, more than what it sold throughout 2012.

The demand for Xiaomi keeps increasing because of the good-of its gadgets and the economical price at which its products are sold in universal markets, for example, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore .

Hugo Barra (ex-Google android official) has been tasked with the job of overseeing Xiaomi's expansion beyond China. Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and India will see Xiaomi phones straightaway.

Business Strategy Of Xiaomi Corporation

Xiaomi had some wonderful achievements in its third entire year as a device creator. The Company is on course to sell 60 million phones this year, and it has ensured footed (if rather moderate) strides into various markets in Asia, for example, Indonesia and India. The organization's development is amazing given the the variety in its product catalog aside from phones.

An ongoing social marking report on Xiaomi by Resonance China dissects an enormous assortment of the startup's procedures and shows how pleasantly they are working out.

The business strategies are described below:

Xiaomi - A Web-Based Business Organization

Business visionary and Xiaomi prime supporter Lei Jun states Xiaomi as a web-based business organization—one of the numerous reasons he loathes the successive examinations among Xiaomi and Apple. They feel a comparison with Amazon is more relevant. Xiaomi has its e-store and has a customer-facing facade on Alibaba's Tmall. The numbers back up Lei Jun's case.

Xiaomi's site is the third biggest business-to-customer (B2C) internet business store in China in terms of deals volume (behind Tmall and nearest rival JD). On China's Singles Day on November 11, a business bonanza saw $9.3 billion spent on Tmall; and Xiaomi was the top brand on Alibaba's commercial center that day.

Xiaomi sold 1.2 million telephones during the 24-hour deals occasion, piling on, alongside offers of some different devices, RMB 1.56 billion ($254 million) in items sold.

Xiaomi by and large sells its gadgets in constrained glimmer deals, ordinarily in clusters of around 50,000 to 100,000 in China and bigger sums abroad. Thus, Xiaomi fabricates only what is certain to sell.

The upstart organization's attempt to close the deal doesn't stop once somebody has purchased a phone. New clients find that their phone includes a pre-installed Xiaomi store application.

The Landing Page Is An E-store

Most device brands use their landing pages as showrooms or celebrated online adverts. Xiaomi gets to the point by making its landing page into an unadulterated web-based business store.

Xiaomi's e-store is updated every day to put an accentuation on which items are next accessible in its progressing streak deals. "Xiaomi's item pages copy best practices from Tmall," says Rand Han, the organizer and overseeing chief of Resonance China.

Tmall is China's greatest image-arranged online commercial center with a huge number of merchants, for example, Uniqlo, Costco, and Burberry. That makes Xiaomi's site design recognizable to the huge number of customers on Tmall and other mainstream online business locales in China.

It has the typical tabs to switch between pictures, details, and purchasers' audits and appraisals. Apple's site isolates all that stuff into the Apple Online Store , whereas Xiaomi keeps it upfront.

Uses Another Sort Of Social Trade

Since Xiaomi generally sells its phones over the web, online networking is significant. It does this in China, for the most part, using Weibo, and in new markets, Xiaomi uses Facebook , Twitter , and Google+.

On Weibo, Xiaomi regularly observes commitment levels well more than 60%, as per the Resonance China report, on account of incessant everyday posts on an amazing assortment of themes.

Not exclusively is there the standard buzz for items and news about glimmer deals, yet also motivating forces for retweets, how-to aides, and fun things like photograph challenges . Xiaomi's Weibo will likewise retweet some popular substance significant to its users by circumventing China's web. The retweet also binds into social issues around contraptions and innovation.

Each Item Range Has A Social Center

Xiaomi has 10 primary Weibo accounts, the most prominent of which is the Xiaomi Mobile Weibo with near 11 million fans; the latest account for the MiPad has crossed 500,000 followers.

Xiaomi's corporate Weibo account has 4,000,000 adherents, demonstrating that individuals would prefer to communicate online with contraptions (as it were) as opposed to an organization.

Notwithstanding Xiaomi's social records, the company's administrators are likewise active on Weibo and fill in as brand representatives. Lei Jun has more than 11 million supporters, while Lin Bin has more than 4,000,000.

Consistent Shortage

Xiaomi's glimmer deals help it get control over stock and lessen wastage, staying away from the sort of over-creation calamities seen as of late with Amazon's Fire Phone and Microsoft's Surface RT.

While that makes it harder to get a Xiaomi device, the organization has figured out how to turn that into a positive, making occasional promotion in terms of offering a predetermined number of gadgets every week .

Xiaomi's online life accounts, especially on Weibo and WeChat, play a key job in driving individuals to the enrollment page for each new blaze deal.

At that point, when a glimmer deal is finished, Xiaomi uses "fast sell-out" stats in further online networking postings; for instance, 50,000 Mi4 cell phones sold out in only 25 seconds. Not every person invites streak deals. The procedure is unquestionably much more mind-boggling than the typical snap-and-checkout on most online business locales.

The framework appears to have met with more analysis outside of China than it has in Xiaomi's home country. When Xiaomi propelled in India in September, it confronted a reaction as interest exceeded supply by a factor of two-to-one, bringing about a rush of baffled and disappointed remarks on the brand's Facebook India page. Notwithstanding those disadvantages, new phone manufacturers are imitating Xiaomi (OnePlus) using blaze deals.

Brings Down The Cost Of "Premium"

For Apple, premiums start at about $700. For Samsung , it's about $600. However, Xiaomi slashed it in half in 2011 by offering phones premium specs (yet a simple, blocky structure) at low prices – just $325. Xiaomi has also increased its equipment configuration game with the goal that the feel of the phone doesn't contrast with the amazing specs.

Enlivened by Apple, Xiaomi instructs purchasers on its plan reasoning, underscoring attention on straightforwardness and usefulness in its items. Xiaomi's very own rendition of Android, called MIUI, has additionally assisted with this superior feel as it is more preferred than most of the Android skins out there.

Runs Its Locale

Alongside its cautious online networking stratagem, Xiaomi is likewise starring dynamic in running its locale gatherings, or BBS. This is the place the brand's most bad-to-the-bone fans, named "Mi fans," meet to examine devices, share information, and by and large hang out.

This is something regular to Chinese organizations , yet to a great extent unused by significant brands abroad. Xiaomi's BBS has 30 million enrolled clients and sees 579,000 new posts day by day.

How Does Xiaomi Prosper And Increase Its Revenue?

Q2 of 2018 saw Xiaomi a 152% hop in its abroad income which is esteemed at about Rs 16,700 crores. The internet services help Xiaomi get a net benefit of around 60%. At the point when it at first began its tasks in India, Xiaomi profoundly relied upon informal publicizing to spare any kind of overhead cost.

This enabled the Chinese giant to sell its items (cell phones particularly) at a lower cost than its rivals. Xiaomi was able to pull in more clients as a result. More procurement implies more clients who use Xiaomi gadgets.

Some of its clients will, in general, become faithful to administrations like the MIUI, Mi Store, and so on. This is what Xiaomi needed ever since it began manufacturing phones . Selling the best of equipment at a lower cost and creating a dedicated fanbase is Xiaomi's plan of action.

Things weren't, however, that simple for the Chinese company. After an underlying lift to its cell phone deals, Xiaomi went down in positioning not long after players like Oppo , Vivo, and Huawei (with Honor) overwhelmed the phone space through disconnected streams. Even though Xiaomi was the pioneer in the online space, individuals still favored purchasing phones physically.

Therefore, Xiaomi started to grow its disconnected nearness by opening Mi Home stores and joining hands with the neighborhood merchants. Opening Mi Home Stores achieved two targets:

• Xiaomi now had one more channel to sell phones.
• People visiting the Mi Home Stores would regularly wind up purchasing different extras like power banks, earphones, and other accessories fabricated by Xiaomi.

Business Growth Of Xiaomi Corporation

In the second quarter of 2021, Xiaomi's total revenue amounted to RMB 87.8 billion. Xiami has recorded an increase of 64.0% year-over-year. It adjusted net profit for the period was RMB 6.3 billion.

The Chinese have a fixation with establishing world precedents. So when Xiaomi propelled 500 disconnected stores in India in October, 2019 at the same time, it registered a global record to its name. For a brand that has greatly depended on web-based blaze deals, opening so many stores was a new strategy.

Internationally, cell phone shipments declined 4.1% in the last quarter of 2018, topping off the "most noticeably awful year ever" for cell phone shipments as reported by industry tracker IDC. Be that as it may, India hasn't seen any stoppage.

In 2018, almost 142.3 million cell phones were dispatched in India. That implies a development of 14.5% over the earlier year. Among the cell phones sold in India , Xiaomi has seen significant strides with a 58.6% year-on-year increment in unit deals in 2018 to capture a piece of the overall industry at 28.9% (IDC stats).

It has been in the Indian phone market for just four years but has overtaken Samsung. The latter has a 22.4% share of the overall industry. India represents more than 33% of Xiaomi's cell phone deals all around.

In 2018, Xiaomi India booked an income of Rs 23,000 crore ($3.24 billion), a 174% development over the earlier year, selling telephones valued at a normal price of $142.53. Samsung's cell phone business in India rounded up about Rs 37,349 crore ($4.82 billion) in a similar period, up 9% from the prior year.

The South Korean organization's phones are valued higher with the catalog starting at $250.

In 2016, Xiaomi propelled the RedMi Note 3 and the RedMi 3S — both selling like hot cakes and helping the organization cut into the offers of Indian makers such as Micromax and Lava.

Xiaomi presently sells disconnected in more than 40 urban communities and has more than 4,000 favored accomplices who sell Xiaomi phones. It likewise propelled enormous organization retailers that year through Sangeeta, Poorvika, Croma, and Reliance Digital . The third mainstay of the organization's disconnected procedure was propelling Mi Home stores, which only sell Xiaomi gadgets.

One aspect that has worked very well for Xiaomi is the organization's evaluating procedure. Xiaomi co-founder Lei Jun broadly said a year ago that the organization could never make over 5% edges from its equipment portfolio, adjusting the organization to its vision of going past being an equipment creator.

"India is very value touchy and almost (every) client survey of the Xiaomi telephone will say that it is useful at the cost," says Vijay Raj, a Bengaluru-based blogger and analyst.

It's not just about making modest smartphones. There's likewise something exceptionally shrewd affecting everything here. As a Harvard Business Review article brings up, Xiaomi keeps its models in the market longer than other telephone producers.

So when segment costs fall, Xiaomi makes a benefit. A half-year prior, it posted a $2.1 billion benefit for its first quarter of business as a traded-on-an-open market organization.

According to one gauge, Xiaomi's MIUI has around 70 million month to month dynamic clients. That makes it a ground-breaking conveyance stage. "They would need to investigate what we can do to make extra dollars of it," says Kawoosa of TechArt. Xiaomi is making Rs 40-45 for each client for each month, he says.

MIUI was one of the earliest cell phone working frameworks making use of locally available infrared blaster to control apparatuses at home. It additionally presented clever highlights that make it simple for clients to duplicate one-time passwords for online exchanges and organize train booking affirmation messages to conspicuously show the PNR number.

Xiaomi likewise lets clients arrange two WhatsApp numbers on the same phone.. Xiaomi, generally speaking, has an arrangement of more than 200 items — extending from a pen to a cleanser gadget to consoles and PCs — a catalog created through its "biological system accomplices." Most of these aren't sold in India yet.

The organization plans to get as many brilliant gadgets as reasonably possible on a typical Internet of Things platform it calls the "Mi Home application". The primary classes in India are presently telephones, TVs, control banks, sound, wearables , and air purifiers. In September, Xiaomi propelled a home surveillance camera.

Future Plans Of Xiaomi

During his visit to India, Xiaomi's Founder and CEO Lei Jun discussed the organization's arrangements, techniques, targets, and a few indications on the upcoming product offerings for the Indian market. Here are some key highlights of his discussion:

Plans To Expand Disconnected Piece Of The Pie

"If we see by and large market, online is a little piece… so it's somewhat reliant on what number of individuals embrace the Internet. In China, after we have accomplished such a scale (in the online market), the test is how we can accomplish the equivalent in disconnected with effectiveness.

In India, after we accomplished over half piece of the pie in online space, the inquiry is how to do likewise in disconnected," Jun said.

New Assembling Plant

Xiaomi recently enlisted a assembling plant in Andhra Pradesh and guaranteed that over 95% of its phones for the Indian market would now be produced locally. As indicated by this ET report, the organization may even take a gander at sending out Indian produced phones later on.

The cell phone producer as of late guaranteed that it has crossed $1 billion in income from its India operations. Xiaomi makes money by selling phones, wearables, frill, air purifiers, and so on.

In Q4 2016, Xiaomi was the second biggest merchant in India as far as phone shipments were concerned, as indicated by IDC. The organization's Mi Band shipments additionally represented 10.3% of the Indian wearables market in Q2 2016.

More Stockrooms And Administration Focuses

The organization is additionally setting up a third distribution center in Delhi NCR and plans to twofold its administrations focus check from 250 to 500 by the principal half of this current year.

Note that Xiaomi has its web-based business store named mi.com in India. In July 2015, Xiaomi declared that it would also put in resources for setting up a claim distribution center and coordinations.

Plans To Enter The Money Related Division

As disclosed to The Hindu, Xiaomi will dispatch another arrangement of items, although Lei Jun didn't mention what sort of items they would be. Jun additionally implied that the organization is keen on venturing into the money related segment in India .

We are investigating the probability of giving budgetary administrations in India. Be that as it may, this part is exceptionally managed. It requires various licenses. If we could get such licenses, we are glad to be a piece of this monetary administration's development in India.

We have to comprehend if there are confinements on remote substances," Jun says. Xiaomi additionally has an installment administration called Mi Pay that is only accessible in China at the moment and has tied up with Bank of China and Union Pay, a card arrange in China.

On Creating New Openings And Income Targets

Jun likewise talked about how the organization focuses on making 20,000 new openings in the following three years by venturing into disconnected retails , assembling, and dissemination. Addressing ET, Jun said that the organization plans to create near $15 billion in general income by concentrating on developing markets like India and Indonesia.

What is the origin of Xiaomi?

Xiaomi was established in April 2010 by Lei Jun and headquartered in Beijing, China.

Who is the founder of Xiaomi?

Xiaomi was founded by Lei Jun, Lin Bin, Zhou Guangping, Wong Jiangji, Wang Chuan, Liu De, Li Wanqiang, and Hong Feng.

How does Xiaomi make money?

Xiaomi makes money by selling phones, wearables, frill, air purifiers, and so on. In Q4 2016, Xiaomi was the second biggest merchant in India as far as phone shipments were concerned, as indicated by IDC. The organization's Mi Band shipments additionally represented 10.3% of the Indian wearables market in Q2 2016.

What makes Xiaomi unique?

Its varied and unique ecosystem of products and the different way of marketing makes Xiaomi Successful and unique from others.

Is Xiaomi trusted brand?

Xiaomi Corporation is a trusted Chinese gadget manufacturer established by Lei Jun in 2010 and headquartered in Beijing.

Why Xiaomi is successful in India?

Xiaomi propelled 500 disconnected stores in India in October at the same time, it registered a global record to its name. For a brand that has greatly depended on web-based blaze deals, opening so many stores was a new strategy. Internationally, cell phone shipments declined 4.1% in the last quarter of 2018, topping off the "most noticeably awful year ever" for cell phone shipments as reported by industry tracker IDC. Be that as it may, India hasn't seen any stoppage.

Is Xiaomi and Huawei same company?

No, Xiaomi Corporation is a Chinese gadget manufacturer established by Lei Jun in 2010 and headquartered in Beijing, While Huawei is another multinational company of China and a competitor of Xiaomi.

Must have tools for startups - Recommended by StartupTalky

• Convert Visitors into Leads- SeizeLead
• Payment Gateway- Razorpay
• Spy on your Competitors- Adspyder
• Manage your business smoothly- Google Workspace

Feature-Packed & Competitively Positioned: Is India Ready for the Punch?

Tata Motors' newest offering, the Punch micro-SUV, enters a fiercely competitive landscape against heavy hitters like Maruti Suzuki's Ignis and Mahindra's KUV100 NXT. Packed with features like a 7-inch touchscreen system, rear AC vents, and cruise control, the Punch seems equipped to take on rivals. However, niggles like average cabin

Understanding the Art of Engagement with Acko's Marketing Strategy

Acko is a digital-first, direct-to-consumer insurance company founded in 2016 by Varun Dua, Chief Executive Officer. Acko operates technology and services platforms focusing on delivering exceptional customer experiences. The company is driven by its unwavering commitment to creating superior value propositions for customers and enhancing engagement.  In September 2017, Acko

Nine Days of Booming Business: The Impact of Navratri Celebrations on Local Businesses

Navratri, a nine-day Hindu festival celebrating the divine feminine, is a vibrant spectacle across India. Marked by fasting, prayer, dandiya nights, and culminating in Dussehra, the festival brings spiritual rejuvenation and a significant economic boost to local businesses. This surge in spending can be attributed to several factors: * Increased Disposable

Opositive Ignites D2C Growth with Inaugural Converse Session: Unveiling Ad-Free SEO Hacks!

Udaipur (Rajasthan) [India], April 19: In today's digital marketing landscape dominated by paid advertising, Opositive, the SEO Research Lab, is offering a refreshing alternative with the launch of its Converse series – a platform for one-on-one industry sessions with SEO experts. The inaugural session, Converse 1.0, featured Nitin Manchanda, an