Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Feature In Patent Dispute

The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited from using its “Find Device” feature, finding that Conqueror Innovations Private Limited had not established a prima facie case of patent infringement.

The court also held that Conqueror's approximately nine-year delay in approaching it was, by itself, enough to deny interim relief.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the Single Judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction.

The bench observed, “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.”

The dispute concerns Conqueror's patent for a “Communication Device Finder System.” The patented system is designed to help locate and communicate with a lost or stolen mobile device.

One part of the patent requires the device to retain important data in a form that cannot be erased. This includes the message centre number, so that the security feature can continue to function even after attempts are made to delete the data or changes are made to the SIM.

Another part concerns an “auto-answer mode.” Under the patent, the lost or stolen phone can silently answer an incoming call, allowing an authorised person to listen to what is happening around the device without the person holding it knowing.

Conqueror argued that Xiaomi's “Find Device” feature met the first requirement because the feature was stored in the phone's ROM. The court disagreed.

It found that storing the feature in ROM was not enough. The claimed system also required relevant data, including the message centre number, to be retained in non-erasable form. The bench noted that this interpretation was also supported by Conqueror's own technical expert and pleadings.

The court also rejected Conqueror's argument on the auto-answer feature. Xiaomi's “Find Device” function can remotely trigger actions such as making the phone ring, locking it or erasing data. It does not, however, silently answer an incoming call and allow the caller to listen to the surroundings.

The bench further rejected the argument that the Single Judge had introduced a new requirement into the patent. It observed that the meaning given to “auto-answer mode” came from the patent specification and from the manner in which Conqueror itself had described and relied on the feature.

Delay provided a separate reason for refusing the injunction. Conqueror's April 2015 Form-27, a patent-office filing in which a patentee reports on the working of its patent in India, showed that it was aware of mobile manufacturers using technologies it considered infringing. Xiaomi had also stated that it began selling devices in India in 2014.

Yet Conqueror did not approach the court in 2015 or within a reasonable period. It instituted the proceedings around nine years later. The bench described this as “prolonged and conscious delay” and held that the delay itself was sufficient to refuse an interim injunction.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The court clarified, however, that its findings were prima facie, meaning they applied to the interim stage and did not finally decide whether Xiaomi infringed the patent. The infringement issue remains open for determination at trial.