The world has moved on to listening to music on Spotify, with audio visual media a few swipes and clicks away. And yet, Dutch multinational Philips, known for pioneering audio systems such as the compact cassette player, has been fighting a case for nearly two decades in court — over patent infringement against a Delhi-based company that was manufacturing VCDs (video compact discs). It lost the case.Philips On Monday (October 13), the Delhi High Court put to rest the patent infringement claim by Koninklijke Philips N V — better known by their brand name of Philips — initially instituted in 2004 over its VCD systems and media. Ruling against the consumer electronics giant, Justice Mini Pushkarna held that they failed to prove infringement over each of the components as well as the system comprising the components. The patent in favour of Philips over the VCD system also expired during the pendency of the suit on May 28, 2010. Notably, while VCD systems now remain unavailable on its website, Philips announced in September that the company would be launching a ‘retro’ range, which includes turntables, to celebrate a century of being in the audio business. What the court said Philips had claimed infringement over three components — a transmitter, a receiver and a transmission medium — which, according to the company, was integral to the working of the VCD system. It further said the patent protection extended to the overall modified transmitter-receiver arrangement/framework, i.e., the system comprising the unique way of interaction of the three components. According to the company, Delhi-based BCI Optical Disc Limited, with units in GT Karnal Road in Delhi and another in Haryana’s Kundli, were found to be replicating such discs. However, Justice Pushkarna, in a 108-page order, ruled that Philips failed to prove its claim of infringement, including of the three individual components as well as the system as a whole. “Since the transmitter-receiver arrangement is essential and integral to the working of the invention claimed, the plaintiff was required to show that the system used by the defendants, with a transmitter-receiver arrangement/framework, physically performs the claimed functions, and not merely that its end product, i.e., VCD, contains compliant frames.” The court said Philips failed to establish the nature of the machine used by the defendants to replicate the VCDs and show that it infringed upon the suit patent. “.. the plaintiff’s entire case on infringement of the patent has proceeded. without mapping of all the elements of its claims onto the defendant's product. The suit patent is a system/product patent. Hence, the onus of proof was unambiguously on the plaintiff.,” the order reasoned. Indicating that Philips had moved the infringement claim against smaller fish, instead of those who may have been actually infringing, the court further recorded, “It is also to be noted that the defendants did not manufacture the VCDs, but only replicated it by use of the replication machinery acquired from Singulus. As such, the process of replication does not involve any transmission or compression mechanism. VCD replication is done from the original Master Disc, which is neither produced nor manufactured by the defendants.” The court then noted, “As per the defendants, the manufacture and production of the original Master Disc, from which replication is carried out by the defendants, is done at the end of the producers of movies/producers of the VCD. plaintiff was required to prove and establish that the original Master Discs. used the patented technology of the plaintiff.” However, the court said, Philips has not established that the original Master Discs, “as supplied by third parties to the defendants, employed the patent of the plaintiff in order to produce such Masters”. “In absence thereof, it cannot be stated that the replicated VCDs of the defendants infringed the patent of the plaintiff in any manner. the defendants do not use any software or hardware for digital transmission and compression of information,” it added.
