Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Interim Injunction Against Xiaomi In Alleged Patent Infringement Case
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to grant interim injunction to an organization particularly Conqueror Improvements Non-public Restricted towards Xiaomi Expertise India Non-public Restricted, alleging patent infringement.
The Courtroom was deciding Purposes filed beneath Order XXXIX Guidelines 1 and a couple of of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 (CPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal noticed, “Notably, the swimsuit patent was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on twenty eighth December, 2010. It has particularly been averred within the Written assertion that the defendant has been promoting its gadgets with the impugned ‘Discover Gadget’ function in India for the reason that 12 months 2014 (See: paragraph 11 of the Written Assertion). There isn’t any rationalization supplied by the plaintiffs as to the delay of just about 9 years in submitting the current swimsuit.”
The Bench stated that the truth that the swimsuit patent has hardly been labored in India would even be one of many elements for refusing the grant of an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs whereas Advocate L. Badrinarayanan appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Temporary Details
The Swimsuit was filed by the Plaintiffs in search of reduction of everlasting injunction, restraining the Defendant from infringing its registered patent titled as “A Communication Gadget Finder System” (swimsuit patent) together with different ancillary reliefs. The Plaintiff firm was a duly recognised start-up and a recognised Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) firm. It was the primary proprietor of the swimsuit patent. The invention of the swimsuit patent pertains to an embedded safety function and its activation. The swimsuit patent was filed in 2006 and was granted in 2010. In 2023, the Plaintiffs acquired to know that the Defendant was manufacturing, providing on the market, importing and promoting on-line and offline cellular gadgets, tablets, and so forth., working on Android OS and the stated gadgets had the “anti-theft kill change software” embedded in them, which allowed a consumer to obtain and set up the anti-theft software/software program modules.
Being aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized use of its patented know-how, the Plaintiff issued a authorized discover and knowledgeable the Defendant about its statutory rights within the topic patent, its SEP standing, and the infringement ensuing from the Defendant’s manufacture, sale, and import of listed merchandise with out consent. It additionally provided to grant a non-exclusive license on FRAND phrases. Upon receiving no response, a follow-up discover was despatched. Regardless of due supply, the Defendant did not reply to the identical and being aggrieved by this, the Plaintiffs filed the Swimsuit earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom in view of the above info, famous, “It’s a settled place of regulation that the unbiased Claims are the widest in scope and the dependent Claims restrict the scope of the unbiased Claims. Due to this fact, if the defendant’s gadgets don’t infringe the unbiased Declare, there can’t be any infringement of the dependent Claims.”
The Courtroom remarked that for the reason that Defendant’s gadgets don’t fulfill or infringe the unbiased Declare 1 of the swimsuit patent, the Plaintiffs can’t maintain an infringement declare based mostly on the claims depending on unbiased Declare 1 both.
“Though the plaintiffs have asserted within the plaint that it has offered varied subscriptions through the Google Play Retailer in respect of the swimsuit patent, nothing has been positioned on report to substantiate the identical. The defendant has positioned on report Kinds-27 filed by the plaintiffs with the Patent Workplace from eighth April 2011 until twenty third September 2022, to point out that the swimsuit patent has not been labored for the reason that grant of the patent”, it stated.
The Courtroom additional famous that the invention, which is the subject material of the swimsuit patent, has been labored in India solely to a restricted extent through the Monetary 12 months 2019-20.
“The Division Bench of this Courtroom in Franz Xaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers has categorically held {that a} registered patentee who has not used the patent in India can’t search an interim injunction towards a celebration”, it added.
The Courtroom additionally refused to just accept the submission of the Plaintiffs that they turned conscious of infringing gadgets solely in January 2023. It was of the view that this inordinate delay in submitting the swimsuit is one more issue that dissuades the Courtroom from granting an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs at this stage.
Conclusion
The Courtroom, due to this fact, held, “In view of the aforesaid dialogue, the plaintiffs have failed to determine a prima facie case of infringement towards the defendant. Stability of comfort can also be in favour of the defendant because the defendant’s merchandise have been offered in India since 2014. Irreparable harm and undue hardship could be brought on to the defendant if an interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from promoting their gadgets in India.”
The Courtroom clarified that within the occasion the Plaintiffs succeed on the time of ultimate adjudication of the swimsuit, they are often suitably compensated by means of damages.
“There may be nothing on report to recommend that the defendant will not be in a superb monetary situation or that the defendant wouldn’t be ready to fulfill a decree for damages which may be handed towards the defendant upon last adjudication of the swimsuit”, it concluded.
Nevertheless, the Courtroom directed that the Defendant shall preserve full accounts of the manufacture and sale of the impugned gadgets and file the assertion of accounts on a half yearly foundation.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the Purposes and refused to grant interim injunction towards Xiaomi.
Trigger Title- Conqueror Improvements Non-public Restricted & Anr. v. Xiaomi Expertise India Non-public Restricted (Impartial Quotation: 2025:DHC:5233)
Look:
Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, Advocates Siddharth Sharma, Nikhil Sharma, Davesh Vashishtha, and Rishub Agarwal.
Defendant: Advocates L. Badrinarayanan, Prashant Phillips, Ankur Garg, Vindhya S. Mani, and Bhuvan Malhotra.
