Delay is a relevant consideration while deciding whether interim relief should be granted in a patent infringement suit. A patentee seeking an interim injunction must show urgency, a prima facie case of infringement, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury. Where the plaintiff approaches the Court after a prolonged and unexplained delay, especially when the defendant’s products have been available in the market for several years, the Court may decline interim relief and direct the plaintiff to establish infringement at trial and seek damages. In brief, delay may not defeat the suit itself, but it can weigh heavily against the grant of an interim injunction.
It is well known that a patentee seeking interim injunction in a patent infringement suit must approach the Court without undue delay. In the patent infringement dispute between Conqueror Innovations Private Limited and Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, involving alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 244963 titled “A Communication Device Finder System”, the Single Judge found an inexplicable delay of 9 years in filing the infringement suit. The Single Judge held that such delay was sufficient to deny interim relief, particularly as Xiaomi’s products had been sold in India since 2014, whereas the suit was filed only in 2023.
Grounds for Refusal of Injunction
In Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited [FAO(OS)(COMM) 147/2025, decided on September 7, 2026], the judgment dated July 4, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. Nos. 10606/2023 and 14719/2023 in CS(COMM) 361/2023 was challenged, whereby the appellants’ applications for interim injunction were dismissed. The learned Single Judge refused interim injunction on three grounds: first, the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement against the respondent; second, the balance of convenience lay in favour of the respondent because its products had been sold in India since 2014, whereas the suit was filed in 2023 after an unexplained delay of nine years; and third, irreparable injury and undue hardship would be caused to the respondent if an interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellants.
Appellants’ Case
The appellants submitted that they hold Indian Patent No. 244963 for the invention titled “A Communication Device Finder System”. They alleged that Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, by using the “Find Device” feature in its mobile phones and other devices, infringed the suit patent. The appellants claimed that Xiaomi smartphones, tablets, laptops and other devices incorporating the “Find Device” feature used the essential elements of their patented technology.
Decision of the Division Bench on the Findings of the Single Judge
Inexplicable Delay of Nine Years
The Single Judge had found that there was an inexplicable delay of nine years before the infringement action was initiated by the plaintiff. This delay, according to the Single Judge, was itself sufficient to deny interim relief. The Division Bench observed that the appellants did not approach the Court in 2015 or within any reasonable period thereafter, but chose to institute the proceedings only after approximately nine years. Such prolonged and conscious delay evidenced lack of urgency and was, by itself, a sufficient ground to decline interim injunction.
The Division Bench further observed that a plaintiff who approaches the Court after such delay should be directed to proceed with trial to prove infringement and claim damages. In these circumstances, the Bench held that the learned Single Judge was justified in declining interim relief on the sole ground of delay itself, relying on the decision in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.
Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case of Infringement
The Single Judge compared the claimed invention with Xiaomi’s system and found that Xiaomi’s system did not contain the essential features of the patented technology. The patented system was designed to allow an authorised owner to continue locating, monitoring, and remotely controlling a stolen phone even after attempts were made to disable its security features. One of its key elements was an “auto-answer mode” that could silently answer incoming calls without alerting the person possessing the phone, thereby allowing the owner or investigator to listen to conversations around the stolen device.
The Single Judge noted that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature allows a user to play a sound, remotely lock the device and erase personal data. However, it does not provide the silent auto-answer functionality contemplated by the patent. The feature also becomes inoperable if the device is reset to factory settings. The learned Single Judge therefore concluded that Xiaomi’s system did not contain the essential features of the patented technology.
The Division Bench agreed with these findings and held that the distinction went to the essence of the invention. It upheld the finding that mere similarity in permitting remote control of a lost device was not enough to establish infringement. The Bench also upheld the finding that Xiaomi’s feature did not contain another essential element relating to non-erasable storage and reinstallation of data.
Decision of the Division Bench
The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge had assigned cogent and substantial reasons for concluding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the respondent. The Bench found no reason to take a different view and held that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in appeal.
The Bench also took note of the ensuing expiry of the patent term. The patent was due to expire on October 17, 2026, meaning that any injunction would operate only for a very short period. The Bench accordingly dismissed the appeal seeking interim relief.
Scope of Interference by the Appellate Court
The Division Bench also clarified the limited scope of interference in an appeal against an order granting or refusing interim injunction. Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727], the Bench observed that an appellate Court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court of first instance merely because it may have taken a different view. Interference is warranted only where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or where the Court has ignored settled principles governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
The Bench held that no error in principle had been shown in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion
This decision reiterates that delay can be a decisive factor in refusing interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. A patentee who approaches the Court after a prolonged and unexplained delay may be directed to proceed with trial, prove infringement and claim damages, instead of being granted urgent interim protection. In the present case, the Division Bench upheld the finding that the nine-year delay evidenced lack of urgency and was by itself sufficient to refuse interim relief.
The decision also reinforces that a prima facie case of patent infringement requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s product or feature contains the essential elements of the patented invention. Mere similarity at a broad functional level is not sufficient where the defendant’s system lacks features going to the essence of the claimed invention.
The ruling further affirms the limited scope of appellate interference in interim injunction matters. Unless the discretion exercised by the Single Judge is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to settled principles, the appellate Court will not substitute its own view. Since no error in principle was shown in the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The Single Judge’s direction requiring the respondent to maintain complete accounts of manufacture and sale of the impugned devices and file statements of accounts on a half-yearly basis continued to operate.
Author: DPS Parmar