On 1 July 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered an oral judgment in the case of InterDigital v Transsion regarding SEP infringement, ordering Transsion to deposit pro tem security with the court to balance the interests of both parties during the proceedings. Previously, Transsion had opposed this interim measure on the grounds that the validity of the patents in question was in doubt and that InterDigital had failed to provide comparable third-party licence agreements; however, the judge did not uphold these arguments.

Regarding the validity and essentiality of the patents, the court, following a preliminary review, found that InterDigital had submitted claim charts and test reports issued by the third-party testing organisation DEKRA, which were sufficient to provide preliminary evidence that the patents in question were essential to the relevant standards; and that some patents within the same family have been recognised as valid and/or essential in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Brazil.

Regarding comparable licence agreements, the court cited a precedent from the Delhi High Court, noting that the patent holder’s failure to provide third-party licence agreements does not constitute a decisive obstacle at the stage of interim security. The court also pointed out that Transsion had not disclosed its sales data in India to InterDigital.

Regarding patent stability, the court held that although Chinese courts had declared certain patents within the patent family invalid, courts in other jurisdictions had ruled in favour of InterDigital; taken together, this did not support the conclusion that the patents in question were invalid or non-essential.

In determining the amount of the security deposit, there was a significant disparity between InterDigital’s FRAND offer and Transsion’s counter-offer. In the absence of comparable licence agreements for reference, the court took one-fifth of Transsion’s third-round counter-offer as the basis for the security deposit and ruled that Transsion should deposit the corresponding amount with the court within eight weeks (the specific amount is kept confidential in the public order); this sum will be held by the court in the form of an automatically renewable fixed-term deposit. The court specifically emphasised that this amount constitutes a provisional arrangement and does not prejudge the final outcome of the substantive proceedings.

It is worth noting that Transsion has faced multiple SEP lawsuits globally in recent years. In addition to InterDigital, Ericsson filed 4G/5G SEP lawsuits against Transsion in Brazil, India, Nigeria and the UPC in November 2025; LG Electronics also sued Transsion in the Delhi High Court in November 2025 for infringing five of its wireless communications patents.

The next hearing in this case is scheduled for 24 August 2026, and IP Finance will continue to monitor further developments.

Case Overview:

In June 2019, InterDigital first approached Transsion to commence negotiations regarding the licensing of standard-essential patents;

In September 2025, InterDigital filed simultaneous lawsuits against Transsion at the UPC, the Commercial Court of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, and the Delhi High Court in India;

On 4 November 2025, the Delhi High Court in India held its first hearing in the case of InterDigital v Transsion;

On 1 April 2026, the Third Commercial Court of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, issued a preliminary injunction, finding that Transsion had infringed two of InterDigital’s 5G standard-essential patents and prohibiting Transsion from selling 5G-compliant devices in Brazil;

On 1 July 2026, the Delhi High Court ruled that Transsion must deposit a provisional security with the court.