In patent infringement cases, plaintiffs must prove that the accused device contains all essential elements of the patent, as the absence of these elements negates infringement claims.

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 10606/2024 and I.A.14719/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the above-captioned applications filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 [hereinafter the ‘CPC’].

2. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs’ registered patent no. 244963, titled as ‘A Communication Device Finder System’ [hereinafter the ‘suit patent’] along with other ancillary reliefs.

3. On 29^th May 2023, this Court issued summons in the suit and notice in the interim injunction application (I.A. 10606/2024). Further parties were referred for mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, the mediation proceedings were not successful.

4. On 7th August 2023, the plaintiffs filed I.A. 14719/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking relief of interim injunction and a direction for deposit of royalties, in light of proceedings initiated against the defendant by the Enforcement Directorate.

5. Notice in I.A.14719/2023 was issued by the predecessor bench on 8^th August 2024.

6. Reply to the interim injunction application (I.A. 10606/2024) and written statement in the suit were filed on behalf of the defendant on 12^th August 2023 and 14^th August 2023, respectively. A counter-claim was also filed by the defendant seeking revocation of the suit patent on 14^th August 2023. A reply to the interim injunction application (I.A.14719/2023) was also filed on 22^nd August 2023.

7. Arguments on the interim injunction applications were heard on 13^th January 2025, 17^th February 2025, 9^th April 2025, 2^nd May 2025. Subsequently, written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the parties.

CASE SETUP BY THE PLAINTIFFS

8. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is as follows:

8.1. The plaintiff no.1, a duly recognised ‘start-up’ and a recognised Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (‘MSME’) company, is the first owner of the suit patent. The plaintiff no.2 is an Indian citizen and inventor of the suit patent. The suit patent was assigned by the plaintiff no.2 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 vide assignment deed dated 29^th April 2021.

8.2. The plaintiff no.2 started his career in 1995 and while carrying on his business of teaching mobile-related solutions to technicians, the plaintiff no.2 realized the need for developing a technology to help find lost and stolen communication devices without the support of law enforcement agencies. In August 2004, the plaintiff no.2 actively started working towards the invention.

8.3. The plaintiff no.2 analysed available prior arts on the subject and realized that the existing anti-theft technologies were ineffective upon the thief or the unauthorized user performing certain actions with the stolen communication device to prevent it from being monitored, tracked or being retrieved. The plaintiff no.2 identified certain other shortcomings in the existing anti-theft technologies.

8.4. To overcome the shortcomings in the prior art, the plaintiff no.2 developed the invention granted by the suit patent. The invention of the suit patent relates to an embedded security feature and its activation.

8.5. The suit patent was filed on 17^th October 2006 and was granted on 28^th December 2010. The same is still valid and subsisting. The bibliographic details of the