Conqueror Innovations Private Limited v Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (2026)

Summary

“The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge” “whereby the Appellants’ applications for interim injunction were dismissed.” (para 1) “The underlying suit has been filed 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’” (para 2.1). “It is the Appellants’ case that in the year 2023 they learnt that the Respondent is selling and manufacturing the impugned devices being smartphones, tablets, Mi Pads, laptops and notebooks which incorporate an ‘anti-theft kill switch tool’ feature which implements the technology of the suit patent.” (para 2.6) In appeal “the Appellants are not pressing for relief of injunction on the basis of SEP” (“Standard Essential Patent”) “requirement and are only pressing for reliefs on the basis of direct infringement.” (para 2.10)

The Bench examined “whether any error in principle has been committed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us” (para 9). It upheld “the finding that the Respondent’s ‘Find Device’ feature does not infringe Element E2 of Independent Claim 1 of the suit patent” (para 31) and “the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent’s ‘Find Device’ feature does not infringe Element E3 of Independent Claim 1 of the suit patent” (para 44), and held that “the learned Single Judge was justified in declining interim relief on the sole ground of delay itself.” (para 46) “Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.” (para 49)

What the court decided

1. Procedure. Scope of the appeal. Referring to “the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox (India) Pvt. Ltd.” as setting out “the limits and nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Appellate Court and the scope of interference permissible, while hearing an appeal against an interim injunction in intellectual property matters” (para 7), the Bench held: “Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we shall examine the present appeal within these limited parameters and determine whether any error in principle has been committed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by us.” (paras 7, 9)
2. A patent near expiry. “We also note that the suit patent was applied for on 17.10.2006, granted on 28.12.2010 and shall expire on 17.10.2026.” “These facts brings to our minds, the view taken by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Novo Nordisk A/s v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., wherein the Division Bench observed that in such cases the application of principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss to the Respondent have to be considered with equal force and the issue should not be limited to addressing the prima facie merits of the case.” (See Novo Nordisk v Dr Reddys Laboratories (2026).) (para 8)
3. Essential features. “We find no infirmity in the legal principle followed by the learned Single Judge that the features covered in the Independent Claim 1 that solve the problem of the prior art(s) are to be considered to be the essential features of a patent, and the plaintiff must prima facie demonstrate that the said essential features are present in the defendant’s alleged infringing devices.” (para 11)
4. Dependent claims. “We also find no ground to disagree with the legal principle followed by the learned Single Judge that where the essential features of the Independent Claim 1 of the suit patent are prima facie not proved to exist in the defendant’s alleged infringing devices, it is not necessary for the Court to proceed to examine the allegation of infringement of dependent Claims.” (para 11)
5. Purpose of the invention. “Thus, as per the pleadings of the Appellant, the essential feature of the suit patent is the continued ability of the authorized owner to locate, monitor and remotely control the stolen device through the SAE, including by activating the ‘auto-answer mode’ silently upon being triggered, so as to retrieve the phone” (para 18). Agreeing with the Single Judge, the Bench held that “this distinction goes to the very essence of the claimed invention and demonstrates that the mere presence of a ‘Find Device’ feature which permits locking or erasing of data cannot, by itself, amount to the infringement of the essentials of SAE claimed in the suit patent which are, essentially, intended to retrieve a stolen phone from the thief.” (paras 18–19)
6. A case not pleaded below. “We, thus, find merit in the submission of the Respondent that the pleading at paragraph 34 of the plaint is at variance with the written submissions of the Appellant placed before us vis-à-vis its allegations qua the infringement of Element E2 of Independent Claim 1. In our considered opinion, the stand now taken by the Appellants is a post-facto reconsideration of their infringement claims in view of the negative findings returned by the learned Single Judge on infringement of Element E2.” (para 25)
7. Element E2 and its data. “Learned Single Judge has, therefore, taken plausible and legally sustainable view of Element E2 feature in holding that the relevant data, including the message center number, is required to be stored in the flash memory and/or ROM” (“read only memory”) “in a manner that renders the same non-erasable.” “The Appellants’ attempt in the appeal to isolate the ROM implementation of SAE from the requirement concerning the message center number would, therefore, amount to not reading a material part of Element E2 of the claim, which must necessarily exist for SAE to function.” (para 27)
8. The alternative of Wi-Fi connectivity. “In other words, the Appellants cannot, on the one hand, assert that the message center number is an essential, non-erasable component of the SAE when stored on a flash memory and, on the other hand, contend that the SAE can function without the message center number when stored in ROM merely because the stolen device may, in some circumstances, obtain internet connectivity through WiFi. Such a construction would render the stipulation of message center number in Element E2 otiose.” (para 29) “Accordingly, we find no error in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge at paragraph nos. 33, 34 and 35 with respect to the infringement of Element E2” (paras 29, 31)
9. Construing ‘auto-answer mode’. “The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not introduce any new limitation into the claim at Element E3; he merely construed the expression ‘auto-answer mode’ in the context in which the patentee itself had described, pleaded and relied upon it. The Appellants’ submission that the expression ‘auto-answer mode’ in Element E3 is to be interpreted by the Court without referring to meaning expressly ascribed to it by the patentee in the complete specification and reiterated in the plaint, is without any basis. In our considered view, the complete specification and the plaint were the relevant documents and have been correctly relied upon by the learned Single Judge.” (para 42)
10. Remote activation and the prior art. “We find merit in the submission of the Respondent that if the feature of ‘auto-answer mode’ in Element E3 is read to mean remote activation only, such claims would lack novelty due to the prior arts” (para 41). “Further, the Appellants’ attempt to equate ‘auto-answer mode’ with mere remote activation of the device is contrary not only to their own pleadings but also to the object and inventive concept of the suit patent.” “The Respondent’s ‘Find Device’ feature does not perform this function. It may remotely trigger certain functions such as playing a sound, locking the device or erasing data, but it does not automatically answer an incoming call, much less do so silently and without the knowledge of the thief/unauthorized user.” (paras 41, 43)
11. No prima facie case. “Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was justified in construing Element E3 in light of the specification and the Appellants’ own pleadings, and in returning a finding that the Respondent’s ‘Find Device’ feature does not embody the claimed ‘auto-answer mode’ contemplated by the suit patent.” (para 44) “We therefore uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement of the suit patent.” (paras 44–45)
12. Delay. “Form-27 for April 2015, filed by Appellant No. 2 before the patent office, demonstrates that the patentee was, at the relevant time, aware of mobile manufacturers employing technologies which, according to the Appellants, infringed the suit patent.” “Such prolonged and conscious delay by the plaintiff evidences lack of urgency and is, by itself, a sufficient ground to not grant an interim injunction, and such a plaintiff should be directed to proceed with trial to prove infringement and claim damages. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining interim relief on the sole ground of delay itself.” (para 46)
13. Disposition. “We accordingly find no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the present appeal.” (para 47) “Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.” (paras 47, 49)

What the court did not decide

“We clarify that the observations made herein, as well as those contained in the impugned judgment to the extent relevant to the present appeal, are prima facie in nature. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the suit.” (para 48)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 20 October 2026.