Raja Rajeshwari, CNBC-TV18

This has been a very intriguing case because they started out as a very small order for Satyam. The work that they have done is very small to the tune of USD 8-10 million only, but now it has taken a huge proposition embroiling Satyam in the case, because this was the work they started doing in 1996 itself and they reached a very loose memorandum for understanding that remains the big contexture for this case itself.

The background to this is when Upaid went and applied for a patent with the US officials, they were asked to provide other documents of the co-inventors. Satyam was also doing certain patent work for them, so two employees of Satyam, Mambakam and Govindrajlu, their documents were submitted by Satyam to Upaid and this was given by Upaid for the patent.

In 2005, when Upaid went and filed a case against Verizone and Qualcomm on patent infringement, Qualcomm had actually submitted documents where in it claimed that the original documents submitted by Satyam were forged, so that’s how this whole case unraveled from there.

Upaid has filed case in Texas, which Satyam has riled against for it to be heard in England. That was the final ruling heard yesterday and it will be finally heard in Texas itself.

Now the contention is on the numbers in each one's perspective. Satyam says the number could be very low because the revenues have been low, but Upaid on the other hand says the amount of losses borne because of the patent, are huge. Their number is above USD 1 billion dollars right now.

IT practitioners are of the view that if indeed Upaid comes in and proves that the two employee’s signature or the documents that were provided are indeed forged, then Satyam stands to loose but for the quantum, you need to wait and watch how this case unravels.

1996 - Upaid developed the idea of converting any telephone into a de facto pay-phone by using a pre-paid account and a caller personal identification number. Software development was outsourced to Satyam   1997 - Reached a ‘short and relatively informal memorandum of understanding’   1998 - Upaid applied for US patent Had to demonstrate 'unity of ownership' of the IP rights in its invention Satyam normally transfers such rights in the products it creates for its customers, but there was no formal agreement to that effect in this instance MOU was silent Parties finalised an Assignment Agreement transferring Satyam's IP to Upaid for a cash consideration. This agreement referred also to a Service Agreement, for which negotiations had begun contemporaneously but which were concluded only in 1999.   2002 - Ended relationship Settlement agreement superseded all previous agreements; exclusive jurisdiction of English courts   2005 - Patent infringement proceedings in Texas against Verizon, qualcomm Upaid lost case due to allegedly forged documents by Satyam   April 2007 - Case filed by Upaid in Texas against Satyam Pertaining to forged documents provided by Satyam   Sept 2007 - Satyam – High court injunction in London Counter Argument: 1) Upaid’s claims against it in Texas were in breach of the Settlement Agreement, which compromised all such claims 2) The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement meant the claims had to be brought before English courts   Yesterdays ruling - Case need not be heard in England, can be heard in Texas   2009 - Case to be heard by Texas Jury