Delhi High Court Rejects Patent Infringement Claim Over Xiaomi’s “Find Device” Feature

In Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. vs. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the refusal of interim injunction against Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 244963, titled “A Communication Device Finder System”. The Court held that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature did not prima facie incorporate essential elements of the suit patent, particularly the claimed data reinstallation mechanism and silent automatic answering of incoming calls. The Court also found that the prolonged delay in instituting proceedings and the imminent expiry of the patent weighed against the grant of interim relief.

Facts of the Case

The Appellants instituted a suit alleging infringement of their patent relating to a system designed to locate and recover lost or stolen communication devices. The patent, originally owned by Appellant No. 2, was assigned to Appellant No. 1 in 2021. The invention was conceived following a burglary in 2004, during which Appellant No. 2 lost 152 mobile phones.

The suit patent, granted on 28 December 2010, comprised a security activation element capable of being installed non-erasable in the device’s ROM or in flash memory with an auto-reinstallation mechanism. It also contemplated a trigger mechanism enabling the device to enter an “auto-answer mode”, alongside functions such as locating the device, playing a sound and erasing data.

The Appellants alleged that Xiaomi’s smartphones and other devices incorporated the patented technology through its “Find Device” feature. After issuing legal notices in January and February 2023, the Appellants instituted proceedings seeking, inter alia, a permanent injunction and interim relief. The learned Single Judge dismissed the interim injunction applications on 4 July 2025, finding that the essential elements of the patent were not prima facie present in Xiaomi’s devices. The Court also considered the delay in instituting proceedings and the balance of convenience in Xiaomi’s favour. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants preferred the present appeal.

Issue before the Court

Whether Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature prima facie infringed the essential elements of the suit patent and whether the Appellants were entitled to interim injunction, warranting interference with the learned Single Judge’s decision.

Findings of the Court

The Division Bench reiterated, relying upon Wander Ltd. v. Antox (India) Pvt. Ltd., that appellate interference with an order refusing interim injunction is warranted only where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, perversely or contrary to settled legal principles.

On the alleged infringement, the Court examined Elements E2 and E3 of Independent Claim 1. It held that infringement requires a prima facie demonstration that the essential elements of the patented claim are present in the allegedly infringing product.

With respect to Element E2, concerning non-erasable storage and the automatic reinstallation of relevant data, the Court rejected the Appellants’ contention that the mere presence of the “Find Device” feature in ROM was sufficient. The claimed mechanism contemplated the retention of relevant data, including the message centre number, to ensure that the security activation element remained functional despite attempts to disable it. Xiaomi’s devices did not prima facie incorporate the claimed auto-reinstallation mechanism or the requisite non-erasable storage of relevant data, including the message centre number

Regarding Element E3, the Court held that “auto-answer mode” could not be construed merely as remote activation of a device. Read in the context of the complete specification and the Appellants’ own pleadings, the feature contemplated silently answering incoming calls without the unauthorised user’s knowledge, enabling the owner to hear the surroundings of the stolen device. Since Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature could trigger functions such as playing a sound, locking the device or erasing data, but did not perform the claimed silent auto-answer function, the Court upheld the finding that Element E3 was absent.

The Court accordingly found no error in the learned Single Judge’s conclusion that the Appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.

The Court also considered the delay in approaching the Court. Xiaomi had been selling the relevant devices in India since 2014, whereas the suit was instituted in 2023. The Appellants’ Form 27 filed in April 2015 indicated awareness of other mobile manufacturers allegedly employing similar technology. The Court held that the prolonged delay demonstrated a lack of urgency and independently justified refusal of interim relief. Further, as the patent was due to expire on 17 October 2026, less than two months remained when the judgment was delivered. The Court found that the balance of convenience and the limited remaining patent term weighed against granting an injunction.

Held

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of interim injunction against Xiaomi. It held that the Appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement and that the delay in instituting proceedings independently weighed against interim relief. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication of the suit.

Conclusion

The decision reiterates that a patent infringement claim requires a prima facie demonstration of the essential elements of the asserted claims in the allegedly infringing product. Broad functional similarities cannot substitute for specific claim limitations. The judgment also underscores that prolonged delay in seeking interim relief may weigh against an injunction, particularly where the patent is nearing expiry and the balance of convenience favours the defendant.

Last Updated on 16 October, 2026