Introduction
How Delay and Non-Use Undid Conqueror’s Claims Against Xiaomi
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited1 [1] offers a meticulous exploration of patent infringement claims and the high threshold required for interim relief in Indian patent litigation. Justice Amit Bansal’s judgment, pronounced on July 4, 2025, refused to grant an interim injunction to the plaintiff, the Indian start-up Conqueror Innovations in its suit alleging infringement of its communication device finder patent by Xiaomi’s pre-installed “Find Device” feature.
Background of the Dispute
Conqueror Innovations is a start-up and MSME holding Indian Patent No. 244963, titled “A Communication Device Finder System”. This invention purportedly overcomes weaknesses in prior anti-theft technologies—particularly the ease with which thieves could circumvent tracking by changing SIM cards or deleting security software. The claimed invention includes a security activation element capable of auto-reinstallation if tampered with and an “auto-answer mode” enabling remote listening into the device’s surroundings without alerting the unauthorized user.
The patent was filed in 2006 and granted in 2010, with a stated expiry date of October 2026. Though claimed as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) by the plaintiffs, the defendant disputed this characterization.
In January 2023, Conqueror learned that Xiaomi’s devices included an anti-theft “Find Device” tool. The plaintiffs issued legal notices asserting infringement and offering a non-exclusive license on FRAND terms. After Xiaomi failed to respond, Conqueror filed suit in May 2023 seeking a permanent injunction and interim relief restraining further sale and manufacture.
Arguments of the Plaintiffs
Conqueror contended that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” tool substantially overlapped with the patented system. Specifically:
- Xiaomi’s system offered non-erasable security tools embedded in ROM and remotely accessible via Mi Cloud, allowing a user to locate, lock, erase data, or make the phone ring. The key elements of the patent, including remote activation and non-erasable storage of security functions, were thus allegedly present.
- The plaintiffs invoked the pith and marrow doctrine, urging the court to look beyond literal claim language to the substance of the invention.
- They argued that mere delay in filing suit does not extinguish statutory patent rights, particularly since the infringement only came to their attention recently.
Importantly, the plaintiffs raised concerns that Xiaomi, under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), might not be able to satisfy any damages awarded at trial.
Defense by Xiaomi
Xiaomi offered a multi-pronged rebuttal:
- The patent was a “non-practicing entity” patent, not worked in India as evidenced by repeated Form 27 (Working Statement) declarations.
- Plaintiffs were aware of Xiaomi’s devices since at least 2014, as demonstrated in earlier filings acknowledging the widespread availability of such products.
- The essential elements of the patent—particularly the silent “auto-answer mode” and auto-reinstallation capability—were entirely absent in Xiaomi’s system.
- Xiaomi’s “Find Device” simply helps users protect their data and does not enable covert call interception.
- The balance of convenience strongly favored Xiaomi, given its massive Indian operations and the potential disruption of business and customer interests.
Core Issues for Determination
The Court distilled the dispute to two principal questions:
- Did Xiaomi’s “Find Device” contain all essential features of the patented invention?
- Did the plaintiffs satisfy the threefold test for interim injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm?
Findings on Claim Construction and Essential Features
Independent Claim 1 contained three main elements:
- Standard mobile hardware (transceiver, processor, memory).
- A security activation element with auto-reinstallation or ROM storage of key data.
- An “auto-answer mode” triggered remotely, silently enabling the owner to monitor the device.
The specification clarified that the unique combination addressed prior art failings—especially the risk of a thief disabling tracking by SIM removal or software deletion.
Crucially, Xiaomi’s system lacked both the auto-answer mode and the auto-reinstallation function. If a Xiaomi phone were factory reset, the Find Device feature would become inoperable—unlike the patent’s claimed indestructible security element. This divergence defeated the plaintiffs’ assertion of infringement.
The plaintiffs further argued that dependent claims—covering capabilities such as location tracking, sounding alarms, and erasing data—were infringed independently. The Court rejected this argument, citing settled jurisprudence that dependent claims cannot be infringed if the independent claim is not. Dependent claims necessarily incorporate all limitations of the parent claim.
Non-Working of the Patent
The plaintiffs’ inability to demonstrate meaningful commercial exploitation was decisive. Though the plaint claimed thousands of subscriptions sold through Google Play, no evidence substantiated these sales. Working Statements (Forms 27) filed over more than a decade indicated minimal or no working. The Court cited Franz Xaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers [2]2, where the Delhi High Court had held that non-working could be a ground to deny interim injunctions.
Delay and Acquiescence
While the plaintiffs insisted, they only discovered infringement in January 2023, the Court noted that Xiaomi’s devices had been widely sold in India since 2014 and that the plaintiffs themselves had acknowledged this reality in 2015. This 8–9-year gap undermined any claim to urgency.
Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm
The Court found the balance of convenience heavily favored Xiaomi. With a massive Indian consumer base and extensive distribution, an injunction would cause substantial disruption. The plaintiffs’ speculative concerns over Xiaomi’s solvency were unsupported. The Court reasoned that damages, if warranted, could be quantified later.
Outcome and Directions
Having found no prima facie case of infringement and no compelling equity, the Court dismissed both interim applications. However, Xiaomi was directed to maintain detailed sales accounts of the allegedly infringing devices and file statements every six months.
Our Analysis
The Court’s refusal to grant even a limited interim injunction rests on three inter-locking pillars: (i) a rigorous essential-elements test, (ii) equitable factors of working and delay, and (iii) a cautious public-interest factor. Each of these strands merits closer scrutiny.
Justice Bansal treated the flash-memory auto-reinstall feature and the covert “auto-answer mode” as the heart of the invention. Because Xiaomi’s phones lack both, the suit patent’s independent claim could not be mapped.
Further, Section 146 of the Indian Patents Act makes it mandatory for every patentee and every licensee to submit periodic statements of working of the patent. The purpose of this requirement is public accountability—because a patent, being a statutory monopoly, is granted in exchange for public benefit. If an invention is not worked (i.e., not manufactured or commercially exploited in India), this becomes an equitable consideration. In this case, the judge relied on this principle: Conqueror’s own Form 27 filings showed that the patent was barely worked at all. This tilted the balance of convenience decisively in Xiaomi’s favor. This approach may also incentivize patentees to demonstrate domestic working early, lest they lose enforcement leverage.
Moreover, nine years of inaction proved fatal. The Court effectively applied the laches principles, holding that this inordinate delay in filing the suit is yet another factor that dissuades the Court from granting an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finally, although the patent was labelled an SEP, the Court never reached FRAND issues because infringement was not established. The takeaway: without strong technical evidence, SEP arguments will not be entertained.
To conclude, Conqueror v. Xiaomi demonstrates that interim injunctions in Indian patent cases are no longer granted on registration alone. Claim charts must show every essential element; patentees must demonstrate real domestic working and act without delay; and courts will weigh public interest heavily. While start-ups may view this as raising the bar, the judgment brings clarity to India’s maturing patent litigation landscape.