Good afternoon, sir, the counsel acknowledges the presence of the Hon’ble tribunal.

May it please the honourable tribunal, I am counsel no 3, representing Mobile 51. I will be
addressing the issue no 11 i.e. Are Intellectual Property Issues Arbitrable?

Mobile 51 claims that some of the patents held by Ferrison should not have been granted and
hence Mobile 51 is free to use some the of technology at issue in hand. Before
comprehending the arbitrability of IP the dispute, it is necessary to comprehend the operation
of the Indian Intellectual Property laws in India. These laws provide the granting of a
"statutory monopoly" to the originator of an intangible asset, granting them the exclusive
right to exploit it. There are legislative remedies available to enforce this right. For instance,
there are legal remedies for copyright, trademark, and patent infringement. These remedies
must be provided by civil courts, according to the legislation.

Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act allows for the arbitration of commercial issues,
without particularly excluding IPR matters. Furthermore, The Indian Patent Act of 1970
permits arbitration of only government-related disputes.

Moving to the statements, Ferrison was abusing its dominant position in the market and the
prices charged by them are arbitrary and unscrupulous and led to exploitation of the
consumers in the market. The current dispute at hand has thus gone out of the jurisdiction
under Arbitration and has attracted jurisdiction of Competition Act and Sebi law. In A.
Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam and Ors., the Courts have held that certain kinds of disputes
may not be capable of adjudication through the means of arbitration, these include disputes
involving patents, trademarks and copyright. In Suresh Dhanuka v. Sunita Mohapatra13, it
was held that a dispute concerning a right in rem shall be incapable of being arbitrated upon
and shall be the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the land. The Supreme Court has
enunciated that the right in rem includes right in patent and copyright

In Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Others, the Supreme Court
defined the position on the subject matter of disputes that may come within the scope of
arbitration. The Court defined the distinction between a right in rem and a right in personam,
stating, "A right in rem is a right exercisable against the whole world, while a right in
personam is an interest protected only against certain persons..."

The Court emphasised that all conflicts involving rights in personam are "subject to
arbitration, whereas all issues involving rights in rem must be decided by courts and public
tribunals."
Now Mobile 51 also asserts that portions of the patents owned by Ferrison should not have
been awarded, and as a result they are allowed to exploit a portion of the at issue technology.
If the issued patents are revoked, the inventions become available for use by everyone, not
only mobile 51, making it a right in rem and hence not arbitrable. Monopoly rights are
regarded non-arbitrable since they are given.

The Supreme Court ruled in Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
that copyrights, patents, and trademarks are rights in rem.

On the basis of the arguments presented, the counsel respectfully pleads that the
aforementioned dispute is not arbitrable and should be brought before a court.