Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 | CM APPL. 60385/2025 | CM APPL.72055/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.M. Lall, Rahul Chaudhry, Nikhil Sharma, Sidharth Sharma, Divesh Vashist
For the Respondents: L Badri Narayanan, Prashant Phillips, Vindhya S. Mani, Pallasash Shankhdhar, Kartikay Singha, Ardra Goodwin, Khushi Lokwani
To establish patent infringement, all essential elements of the independent claim must be present in the accused product. Terms in claims are construed based on the complete specification and pleadings. Prolonged, unexplained delay in filing an infringement suit disentitles the plaintiff to interim injunctive relief.
Headnote:(A) Patent Infringement - Essential Features - For a finding of infringement, all essential elements of the independent claim must be present in the accused product. Features that solve the problem of the prior art are considered essential. (Para 10.1, 10.12, 11)
(B) Claim Construction - Element E2 (Non-erasable storage) - The requirement for non-erasable storage of the Security Activation Element (SAE), including the message center number, is essential for the invention's functionality. Mere presence of a ROM without the specific non-erasable data does not satisfy the claim. (Para 27, 28, 31)
(C) Claim Construction - Element E3 (Auto-answer mode) - Terms in claims must be construed in light of the complete specification and the patentee's own pleadings. A feature defined as silent automatic answering of calls to allow the owner to hear surroundings cannot be redefined as mere 'remote activation' in an appeal. (Para 42, 43, 44)
(D) Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Prolonged and unexplained delay in filing an infringement suit, especially when the patent is nearing expiry, weighs heavily against the grant of an interim injunction. (Para 8, 46)
Issues: Whether the Respondent's 'Find Device' feature infringed the suit patent and whether the Appellants were entitled to an interim injunction.
CNR No. DLHC010711982025
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. Nos. 10606/2023 and 14719/2023 in CS(COMM) 361/2023 [‘impugned judgment’], whereby the Appellants’ applications for interim injunction were dismissed.
1.1. The learned Single Judge concluded that the Appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement against the Respondent; the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Respondent as the Respondent’s products have been sold in India since 2014, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2023, with an inexplicable delay of nine (9) years; irreparable injury and undue hardship would be caused to the Respondent if an interim injunction is granted in favour of the Appellants, restraining the Respondent from selling its devices [‘impugned devices’] in India.
1.2. The learned Single Judge held that in the event the Appellants succeed at the time of final adjudication of the suit, the Appellants can be suitably compensated by way of damages. The learned Single Judge held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the Respondent is not in a good financial condition or that the Respondent would not be in a position to satisfy a decree for damages that may be passed against the Respondent upon final adjudication of the suit. However, the learned Single Judge directed that the Respondent shall maintain complete accounts of the manufacture and sale of the impugned devices and file the statement of accounts on a half-yearly basis.
FACTS AS STATED IN THE APPEAL
2. Facts as stated by the Appellant in the appeal are as under: -
2.1. The underlying suit has been filed1On 19.05.2023 inter-alia seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing the Appellant’s registered patent no. 244963, titled ‘A Communication Device Finder System’ [‘suit patent’ or ‘system’].
2.2. Appellant No. 2 is the inventor and first owner of the suit patent. It is stated that the suit patent was assigned by Appellant No. 2 to Appellant No. 1 vide Deed of Assignment dated 29.04.2021 and subsequently the name ofAppellant No. 1 was entered as the company entitled to the suit patent.
2.3. It is stated that in August 2004, a burglary at Appellant No. 2’s premises, during which he lost 152 mobile phones, gave Appellant No. 2 the idea to develop technology to recover lost/stolen devices without the need of enforcement agencies.
2.4. In the appeal, at paragraph no. 6, the features of the suit patent have been described, which reads as under:
“The suit patent essentially features a communication device finder system comprising a non-erasable security activation element which can be provided in (Claim 1- Element 2): (i) Read-Only-Memory (ROM) or (ii) in flash memory.
The security activation element is adapted to activate and bring the communication device finder system into an auto-answer mode, on being triggered using any of the following modes (Claim 1 - Element 3):(i) another communication device;(ii) through internet by a predetermined IP address (website); or (iii) by entering incorrect PIN/ Password.
The other features of security activation element forming subject matter of suit patent include the following:(i) Identifying the location of the lost/ stolen/ misplaced device (Claims 2 and 9);(ii) Playing sound on lost/ stolen/ misplaced device (Claim 4); or (iii) Erasing data (such as contacts) on the lost/ stolen/misplaced device (Claim 5).”
2.5. It is stated that the essential features of the suit patent have been enlisted as essential requirements of the standard published by an SSO, Standard Setting Organisation as well as various recommendation bodies for the telecommunication device manufacturers as per the following standards prescribed by International Telecommunication Union (‘ITU’):
“(i) T-REC-X.1127-09/2017: Functional security requirements and architecture
