A Phone-Finder Patent, And A Delay That Decided The Appeal
An inventor who lost 152 phones in a burglary patented a way to track stolen handsets, then sued Xiaomi nine years after its phones reached India. The Delhi High Court has refused him an interim injunction.
The Court upheld the finding that there was no prima facie infringement: Xiaomi's 'Find Device' feature does not meet one element of the patent's main claim. Independently, the patentee knew of such technologies by 2015 but sued only after about nine years. That prolonged and conscious delay is by itself enough to refuse an interim injunction. The appeal was dismissed.
- Delay alone can defeat an injunction; the plaintiff must go to trial and claim damages.
- A patent office filing showed knowledge — the 2015 working statement.
- Claim elements are read strictly; missing one defeats infringement.
- Xiaomi must keep accounts of the devices, filed every six months.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
- Citation
- FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 147 of 2025
- Case
- FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 147 of 2025
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; refusal of interim injunction upheld
The patent
The appellants own an Indian patent titled 'A Communication Device Finder System'. The inventor says the idea came after a 2004 burglary in which he lost 152 mobile phones.
The patent describes a non-erasable security element that puts a lost device into an auto-answer mode when triggered — by another device, a website, or a wrong PIN — to locate it, play a sound or erase data.
In 2023 the appellants sued Xiaomi, saying its smartphones, tablets and laptops used the technology through an anti-theft feature. A Single Judge refused an interim injunction in July 2025 but directed Xiaomi to keep accounts.
Why the appeal failed
The Division Bench agreed that Xiaomi's 'Find Device' feature does not infringe one element of the patent's independent claim, so no prima facie case was shown.
On balance of convenience, a working statement filed with the patent office in April 2015 showed the patentee then knew of phone makers using what he says infringed his patent. Xiaomi has sold devices in India since 2014, and suit came about nine years later.
Following Novo Nordisk v. Dr. Reddy's, such prolonged and conscious delay shows a lack of urgency and is by itself enough to refuse an interim injunction; the plaintiff should prove infringement at trial and claim damages.
The result
The appeal was dismissed. The Court said its views are prima facie and the trial will decide the case independently.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can delay in suing cost a patent holder an interim injunction?
Yes. The Court held a nine-year delay was by itself enough to refuse it.
Does refusal of an injunction end the case?
No. The suit goes to trial, and damages remain possible.
Enforcing a patent against a large manufacturer
- Act as soon as you learn of possible infringement; delay undermines interim relief.
- Map each claim element to the product feature before suing.
- Remember your own patent office filings can show when you knew.
- Ask for accounts to be maintained if an injunction is refused.
Source. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 147 of 2025, decided 7 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in