The court held that damages for patent infringement can exceed initial claims if justified by patent valuation and evidence, particularly regarding Standard Essential Patents.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

REVIEW PET. 89/2026 in RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 REVIEW PET. 73/2026 in RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025

1. Alleging that the appellants had infringed Indian Patent IN 218255, “IN’255”, the suit patent hereinafter, pertaining to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”, the respondent, Koninklijke Philips N.V., “Philips”, hereinafter instituted CS (Comm) 423/2016, CS (Comm) 499/2018 and CS (Comm) 519/2018, “the suits”, hereinafter against the appellants, seeking decrees of permanent injunction, restraining them from infringing the suit patent and also claiming damages and costs.

2. During the course of the suits, the suit patent IN’255 expired by efflux of time. The prayers for injunction were, therefore, rendered infructuous, and the suits survived only qua damages and costs.

3. By judgment dated 20 February 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the suits awarding damages of Rs. 7,22,50,000/-, along with interest in CS (Comm) 423/2016, Rs. 1,61,85,000/- along with interest and additional damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in CS (Comm) 519/2018 and Rs. 12,43,25,700/- along with interest and additional damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in CS (Comm) 499/2018.

4. These Review Petitions have been filed only in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025, which emanates from CS (Comm) 519/2018, and RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025, which emanates from CS (Comm) 423/2016. Pearl Engineering is the main appellant in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025 and Siddharth Optical is the main appellant in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025.

5. We will not, therefore, advert, hereinafter, to RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025, as no Review Petition has been preferred therein.

6. The appeals were accompanied by CM Appl. 25908/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025] and CM Appl. 31118/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025], under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, “Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”, hereinafter, seeking stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree.

7. By a detailed judgment dated 5 January 2026, we disposed of the aforesaid CM Appl. 25908/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025] and CM Appl. 31118/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025], with a direction to the appellants to furnish, in each case, an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee coving the principal amount of damages awarded by the learned Single Judge.

8. Having thus obtained substantial respite from the requirement of depositing the entire decretal amount with the Court, which is the ordinary norm under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, and having been required only to furnish a bank guarantee for the principal amount in each appeal, the appellants, like Oliver Twist, want more. The appellants have now filed the present Review Petitions, seeking review of our judgment dated 5 January 2026, and consequently, seeking an absolute stay of execution of the impugned judgment dated 20 February 2025 of the learned Single Judge, without having to make any deposit whatsoever.

9. We have heard Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

10. Before adverting to rival submissions of learned Senior Counsel, it would be appropriate to set out, briefly, the manner in which we have arrived at our decision to direct furnishing of a bank guarantee for the principal amount in each appeal as a condition for grant of stay.

11. The suit patent relates to a Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal through a technology known as “EFM+ coding”. Inasmuch as it proffers to claim an essential and integral industry standard in the manufactur