Communication Components Antenna Inc v Ace Technologies Corp (2022)

Summary

“The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 (hereinafter ‘IN'893’) along with damages, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery-up, etc was filed in 2018. The Patent is titled ‘Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency’.” (para 2) “Vide judgment dated 12th July, 2019, directions were issued by the Court to the Defendant for furnishing of bank guarantee and future deposits.” (para 4) “The Supreme Court vide its order dated 20th September, 2019 restored the Single Judge’s order” (para 6), and on 31 October 2019 “directions were issued for making continuous cash deposits in terms of the order dated 12th July, 2019.” (para 6) In the parallel suit against Mobi Antenna Technologies, “the Division Bench set aside the revocation of the patent and remanded the matter” and, on remand, “the said two additional issues were decided in favour of the Plaintiff and the suit patent was upheld.” (para 9) “The Defendant seeks variation of the order dated 12th July, 2019.” (para 11) “On the other hand, the Plaintiff has also filed applications for further disclosure of sales in respect of certain models of antenna and also filed an interim injunction application seeking inclusion of another model of Antenna in the present suit on the ground that the same is infringing in nature.” (para 12)

The Court was “of the opinion that the suit was filed way back in 2018 and sufficient rounds of litigation have taken place both in respect of the suit patent and in respect of the interim arrangements which were passed in this matter.” It held that “the suit is ripe for trial on some issues which arise and may be outstanding for adjudication.” (para 13) “In view of these factors and events recorded above, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of some of the applications in the following manner and put the suit for trial.” (para 14) The sales turnover of the disputed models was to be filed “in a sealed cover” (paras 15, 17), and the Court directed: “List on 29th March, 2022.” (para 29)

What the court decided

1. Further interim applications. “Thus, in order to expeditiously dispose of the suit and keeping in mind the previous developments that have already taken place, this Court feels that the suit is ripe for trial on some issues which arise and may be outstanding for adjudication. The adjudication of further applications either for extension of injunction for further models or for varying the interim arrangement would lead to further delays in the adjudication of this suit.” (para 13)
2. The 2022 Rules. “The spirit of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 as also the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 is for final adjudication of the patent suits and not continuous expending of judicial time over interim applications.” (para 13)
3. The three further factors. “The following three further factors also make the Court inclined to take this view:” “On the question of invalidity there has been a complete trial which has already been upheld on most of the grounds including Novelty and inventive step. The Single Judge and the Division Bench have taken a view in the matter in respect of this very suit patent.” “Insofar as the interim arrangement in the present suit is concerned, the same has also gone through two rounds of litigation from two orders of the Single Judge and two appeals and one SLP before the Supreme Court.” “The issues that may be outstanding for adjudication are very few in number.” (para 13)
4. Sales of a disputed model. On the applications seeking “disclosure of sales turnover of antenna model XXDGL-15-33i-iVT-DB-4P in India”, the Court directed: “Leaving open the questions as to whether the said models of the Defendant are infringing the suit patent or not and the question as to whether they are the subject matter of the present suit at all, the Defendant is directed to file the sales turnover in respect of the said models before this Court in a sealed cover. The same shall be retained for being perused at the final stage of adjudication.” (para 15)
5. A further model at trial. On the application seeking “extension of the interim order passed by the Court on 12th July 2019 to model number-XXDWH-19-33ie-VT-DB-8P”, the Court held: “In view of the fact that the suit is being put to trial, leaving open the right of the Plaintiff to establish that the said model is an infringing model at trial, it is directed that the sales turnover relating to this model shall be filed by the Defendant in a sealed cover before this Court.” (para 17)
6. Procedure. Disclosure and Order XXXIX Rule 2A. The plaintiff sought “attachment of the property of the Defendant inter alia on the ground that the Defendant is not making proper disclosure of the sales”, and the defendant submitted that “Since the Plaintiff is a competitor, the Defendant does not wish to disclose the customers’ names, etc. to the Plaintiff.” (para 19) The Court held: “In the opinion of this Court, this would not be a subject matter of contempt inasmuch as if there is any disclosure to be made to the Plaintiff, the same shall be considered by the Court after a chart is filed by the Defendant disclosing the actual sales, and the total quantum of the antenna made along with model numbers.” (paras 19–20)
7. Procedure. Directions for trial. “Parties to also bring proposed issues which are outstanding for adjudication, on the next date of hearing. Parties may also seek instructions as to the experts from their side who would be tendering evidence in this matter in support of the plea of infringement, invalidity and damages.” (para 28)

What the court did not decide

Of the first disputed model, the Court left “open the questions as to whether the said models of the Defendant are infringing the suit patent or not and the question as to whether they are the subject matter of the present suit at all” (para 15), and of the second it left “open the right of the Plaintiff to establish that the said model is an infringing model at trial” (para 17).

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 16 October 2026.