Delhi High Court Upholds Canadian Company's Antenna Patent, Finds Rosenberger In Infringement

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Canadian firm Communication Components Antenna Inc. in a patent infringement dispute, turning down the defendants' challenge to the validity of its patent covering split-sector antenna technology that uses asymmetrical beams. The Court also held that companies within the Rosenberger Group had infringed the invention.

In a judgment delivered on March 30, 2026, Justice Prathiba M. Singh upheld the patent as valid and enforceable. The Court found that Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Prose Technologies India Private Limited, Rosenberger Asia Pacific Electronic Co. Ltd., and Prose Technologies (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. were unable to make out any legally sustainable ground for revoking it under the Patents Act.

The court criticised the manner in which prior art was cited against the patent, describing it as a “textbook exercise of impermissible hindsight bias” and characterising it as a “Dartboard Model."

“Such an approach by persons challenging patents is observed in several cases and can be dealt with using a Model that this Court terms as the 'DARTBOARD MODEL'. In this Model, at the centre of the Dartboard is the subject invention which is being challenged and each of the prior arts are the Darts being slung at the invention in question,” the court observed.

Explaining further, the court noted that such an approach leads to unnecessary litigation burden, observing that it results in “enormous consumption of resources” for parties and courts alike and ought to be discouraged.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction and damages, alleging that the defendants' antennas infringed its patented split-sector antenna technology that uses asymmetrical beams while maintaining the required coverage area.

On infringement, the Court accepted the plaintiff's case that the defendants' products exhibited beam patterns matching the patented invention. It noted that comparison with the defendants' own product literature was a valid method to establish infringement, particularly in light of the defendants' conduct.

The court remarked that some technical materials earlier available in the public domain had been withdrawn during the proceedings, observing: “Obviously, the Defendants effort was to make it difficult for the Plaintiff to prove infringement. This conduct of the Defendants is suspect to say the least.”

Rejecting the revocation challenge, the court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate lack of novelty, inventive step, or insufficiency of disclosure. It further found that key terms such as “critical coverage area” were clearly understandable to a person skilled in the art.

The court concluded that the defendants had failed to discharge the burden of proving invalidity and that the plaintiff had successfully established infringement.

Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, with the court holding the defendants liable to pay damages, including on the basis of licensing benchmarks.