$~16 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 405/2023 & CC(COMM) 32/2024 I.A. 11163/2023 I.A.

11164/2023 I.A. 28551/2025 LARGAN PRECISION CO. LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. Achyut Tewari & Ms. Krisha Baweja, Mr. Kartikeya Prakash, Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocates versus MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA LIMITED AND ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Paliwal, Mr. Shreyansh Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 17.11.2025 I.A. 28551/2025(application seeking leave to file additional documents)

1. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [‘CPC’] filed by the plaintiff for bringing on record additional documents enlisted at paragraph 7 and 8 of the captioned application.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that initially when the suit was filed, the plaintiff had identified the infringing products as MOTOROLA G31 (Model: XT2173-2) and MOTOROLA G60 (Model: XT2135-2).

3. He states that, however, the defendants have now filed affidavits on

07.08.2025 taking a stand that they have discontinued the use of the models MOTOROLA G31 and MOTOROLA G60.

4. He states, however, plaintiff has recently learnt that defendant is manufacturing new models/devices identified as Motorola Moto G96 (XT2531-2) and Motorola Moto G64 (XT2431-1) which infringe the suit patent, as well.

5. He states that plaintiff seeks liberty to place on record the affidavits in support of this assertion of infringement on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. He refers to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 21.03.2022 in CS(COMM) 304/2021 to contend that raising the additional claims for the further models manufactured by the defendant by way of filing these affidavits is permissible and it is not necessary to amend the pleadings.

Relevant paragraphs of the order relied upon read as under: -

“7. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. In patent infringement suits, this Court notices that suits are filed on the basis of the claims/patents asserted in respect of devices which may be readily available on which testing is done to check infringement. During pendency of the suit, the Defendant may launch new models or the Plaintiff may realise that further patents or claims are also infringed. However, in every such case, filing of fresh suits or moving amendment applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would delay and complicate the adjudication of the suit. There is therefore a need to give some flexibility in terms of addition of new devices/models which may be found infringing by the Plaintiff qua the suit patent in the existing suit itself. The said need is felt by the Court considering the nature of a patent infringement suit where the suit is filed based upon certain patents, which are asserted qua certain devices which may be found to be infringing in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.

8. Accordingly, insofar as the assertion of additional claims or adding of further devices/models qua the suit patent are concerned, the Plaintiffs are given liberty to assert the same by means of a separate affidavit which may be filed by the Plaintiff with test reports, if any, prior to framing of issues. If the issues have already been framed in the suit, then the same may be asserted by means of affidavit in evidence, which may be filed by the Plaintiff. In response to such an affidavit of the Plaintiff, the Defendant would be given liberty to rebut the same at the appropriate stage.

9. Insofar as addition of further patents is concerned, if the Plaintiff wishes to assert infringement of other patents, a fresh suit would have to be filed by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff would be at liberty to pray for consolidation at the appropriate stage.

10. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the Plaintiff is at liberty to avail of its remedies in accordance with law in