Back
Delhi High Court refuses to restrain Xiaomi from using 'Find Device' feature in patent dispute
The has refused to grant an against , upholding the single judge's finding that failed to establish a case of . The Division Bench, comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed the appeal on , ruling that the essential features of the patented invention were not present in Xiaomi's "Find Device" functionality.
Background of the dispute
Conqueror Innovations, along with the inventor of Indian Patent No. 244963 for a "Communication Device Finder System," filed a suit in alleging that Xiaomi's "Find Device" feature infringed its patent. The patented system is designed to help owners locate and recover lost or stolen mobile devices through a security activation element that is non-erasable and can be remotely triggered. Conqueror sought an to stop Xiaomi from selling its devices in India, but the single judge dismissed the application in . The appeal challenged that decision.
Arguments advanced by both sides
Senior counsel for Conqueror argued that the single judge had erred in construing the patent claims, particularly Elements E2 and E3 of Independent Claim 1. He contended that Xiaomi's "Find Device" feature, being pre-installed in read-only memory (ROM), satisfied Element E2's requirement of a non-erasable security activation element. He further argued that the "auto-answer mode" in Element E3 should not be limited to silently answering incoming calls but should encompass any remote activation of the device.
Responding, counsel for Xiaomi submitted that Conqueror was advancing a new case on appeal inconsistent with its pleadings before the single judge. On Element E2, he argued that the patent requires the relevant data, including the message centre number, to be stored in a non-erasable manner—a feature absent from Xiaomi's devices. On Element E3, he pointed out that the "Find Device" feature does not silently answer incoming calls to allow the owner to listen to surroundings, as described in the patent specification and Conqueror's own plaint.
Court's analysis and reasoning
The Division Bench examined the two disputed elements closely. Regarding Element E2, the court noted that the patent contemplates the security activation element being stored in either flash memory with an auto-reinstall option or in non-erasable ROM containing the relevant data, including the message centre number. The court found that Conqueror's own technical expert and pleadings had treated the message centre number as an essential component.
"If, in the Appellants' suit patent, there is no flash memory having message centre number in the device and the SAE is only stored in ROM without message centre number, the functionality of SAE on which the Appellants rely upon to distinguish the invention from the
(s) … it is unclear as to how SAE will operate,"
the court observed.
On Element E3, the court upheld the single judge's interpretation that "auto-answer mode" refers to the silent answering of incoming calls without the thief's knowledge, enabling the owner to hear conversations around the device. The judgment noted that this feature is
"absent in the defendant's devices."
The court rejected Conqueror's attempt to redefine "auto-answer mode" as mere remote activation, observing that such a construction would render the claim lacking novelty given
.
The court also highlighted the prolonged and unexplained
of nine years between Xiaomi's market entry in
and the filing of the suit in
. Noting that Conqueror's Form-27 for
showed awareness of other manufacturers using similar technology, the bench held that
"such prolonged and conscious
by the plaintiff evidences lack of urgency and is, by itself, a sufficient ground to not grant an
."
Key observations
"We therefore uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants have failed to establish acase of infringement of the suit patent."
"The Respondent's 'Find Device' feature does not perform this function. It may remotely trigger certain functions such as playing a sound, locking the device or erasing data, but it does not automatically answer an incoming call, much less do so silently and without the knowledge of the thief/unauthorized user."
"The Appellants' attempt to equate 'auto-answer mode' with mere remote activation of the device is contrary not only to their own pleadings but also to the object and inventive concept of the suit patent."
Final decision and implications
The dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the single judge's order. The court clarified that its observations were and would not influence the final adjudication of the suit. The patent is set to expire on , leaving less than two months at the time of the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of establishing all essential claim elements in infringement actions and the significance of as a standalone ground for refusing interim relief.
