Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 9 September 2025
Pronounced on: 5 January 2026
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025, CM Appl 25908/2025
MAJ (RETD.) SUKESH BEHL PROPRIETOR, M/S PEARL
ENGINEERING COMPANY & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Rahul
Chaudhry, Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Ms.
Mugdha Palsule, Mr. Avinash, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R
Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Ms. Saijal
Arora, Mr. Siddhant Chamola Advs.
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2025, CM APPLs. 28541/2025,
28542/2025, 28543/2025 & 28544/2025
MAJ (RETD) SUKESH BEHL & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Rahul
Chaudhry, Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Ms.
Mugdha Palsule, Mr. Avinash, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R
Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Ms. Saijal
Arora, Mr. Siddhant Chamola Advs.
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025, CAV 197/2025, CM APPLs.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
31118/2025, 31119/2025 & 31120/2025
SURINDER KUMAR WADHWA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr.
Shaswat Tiwari, Ms. Avantika Shankar, Mr.
Rishabh Bharadwaj, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr.
Pulkit Jolly, Mr. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Mr
Binwant Singh, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R
Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Ms. Saijal
Arora, Mr. Siddhant Chamola Advs.
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2025, CAV 198/2025, CM APPLs.
31125/2025, 31126/2025, 31127/2025 & 31128/2025
G.S. KOHLI & ANR. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr
Binwant Singh, Ms Avantika Shankar, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R
Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Ms. Saijal
Arora, Mr. Siddhant Chamola Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
% 05.01.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
The lis
1. By judgment dated 20 February 2025, a learned Single Judge of
1 2
this Court disposed of CS (Comm) 423/2016 , CS (Comm) 499/2018
3
and CS (Comm) 519/2018 .
4
2. The aforesaid suits were instituted by Koninklijke Philips N.V.
against the appellants in the present appeals, alleging that the
5
appellants had infringed Indian Patent IN 218255 , of which Philips
was the proprietor, pertaining to a “Method of Converting Information
Words to a Modulated Signal”. The suits therefore, sought decrees of
permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from infringing the
suit patent and also claimed damages and costs.
3. During the currency of the suits, the suit patent expired by
efflux of time. The prayers for injunction, therefore, were rendered
infructuous.
4. The impugned judgment, therefore, decrees the suits only to the
extent of damages and costs. Damages of ₹ 6,22,50,000/-, along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit
till the date of payment of the damages awarded, and additional
damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against the appellants
in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025, damages of ₹ 1,61,85,000/- along with
1
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj. (Retd) Sukesh Behl & anr
2
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. G.S. Kohli and Others
3
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Surinder Wadhwa and Others
4
“Philips”, hereinafter
5
“IN’255”, also referred to, hereinafter, as “the suit patent”
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit
till the date of payment of the damages awarded and additional
damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against the appellants
in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025, and damages of ₹ 12,43,25,700/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
filing of the suit till the date of payment of the damages awarded and
with additional damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against
the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025.
5. Along with the present appeals, the appellants have filed CM
Appl 25908/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025], CM Appl
31118/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025] and CM Appl
31125/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025], under Order XLI Rule
6 7
5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , have been filed along with
6
5. Stay by Appellate Court .—
(1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed
from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by
reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for
sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
Explanation.—An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree
shall be effective from the date of the communication of such order to the Court of first instance,
but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for
the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt
from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the contrary, be acted
upon by the Court of first instance.
(2) Stay by Court which passed the decree.—Where an application is made for stay of
execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing
therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the
execution to be stayed.
(3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the
Court making it is satisfied—
(a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless
the order is made;
(b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such
decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order for stay of
execution pending the hearing of the application.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails
to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not
make an order staying the execution of the decree.
7
“CPC”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
appeals, seeking stay of execution of the impugned judgment and
decree.
6. We have heard Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025 and RFA (OS) (Comm)
12/2025, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellants in
RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025 and RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025 and Mr.
Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in the
stay applications filed with the appeals, and have reserved orders
thereon.
7. This judgment adjudicates the said stay applications.
8. Law relating to Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC – The decision in
Lifestyle Equities
8.1 The principles relating to adjudication of applications under
Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC stand recently crystallized by the
Supreme Court in its judgment in Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon
8
Technologies Inc .
8.2 The Supreme Court has, in the said judgment, held that the
principles that govern grant of stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the
CPC are the same, whether the decree under challenge is, or is not, a
money decree. Nonetheless, in respect of money decrees, the Supreme
Court has taken note of the entire preceding legal position, as
contained in Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai &
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
9 10
Co. , Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. and
11
Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd v. Jyoti Ltd , to hold that while, ordinarily,
money decrees are not to be stayed in appeal, stay may be granted in
exceptional cases. The principle that stay of a money decree is not
completely foreclosed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC was
specifically enunciated in Malwa Strips and, after noting the relevant
passages from the said decision, the Supreme Court has, in para 70 of
Lifestyle Equities, observed as under:
“70. Thus, in Malwa Strips (supra) , this Court unequivocally
observed that although the word “shall” has been used in Order
XLI Rule 5 CPC, yet the same is not mandatory in character. The
Court further observed that the purpose for which such a provision
has been inserted, should be taken into consideration. An
exceptional case has to be made out for unconditional stay of
execution of a money decree. Thus, it is necessary to imply that if
an exceptional case is made out, the Appellate court has the
discretion to stay the execution of the money decree without
imposing any condition.”
8.3 This principle is reiterated in para 78:
“78. Thus, it cannot be said as a principle of universal rule that
in all cases of money decree, the defendant should be directed to
deposit the amount in court and then only the question of stay be
considered.”
8.4 Having so observed, in para 80 of the judgment, the Supreme
Court reiterated the normal principle that stay of execution of money
decrees is ordinarily not to be granted and, even while observing that
the principle was more a rule of prudence than a principle of law of
universal application, specifically “(believed) and (held) that this
9
(2005) 4 SCC 1
10
(2005) 1 SCC 705
11
(2009) 2 SCC 426
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 6 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
practice based on the rule of prudence should ordinarily be followed
by appellate courts”. Para 80 of the Lifestyle Equities read thus:
“80. Then the question is: Is there an established practice that
the execution of money decree should not be stayed unless the
judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in court, and on such
deposit, the successful party be permitted to withdraw the money
on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court. We do
observe that in a large number of cases where a money decree is
passed, this Court generally does not grant stay unless the
defendant deposits the amount in court. But this appears to be a
rule of prudence and not a principle of law of universal application.
We also believe and hold that this practice based on the rule of
prudence should ordinarily be followed by appellate courts. The
practice of not granting stay in money decrees except on condition
that the decretal amount be deposited in the court, and the
successful party be permitted to withdraw the same on furnishing
security to the satisfaction of the trial court appears to have been
well entrenched, and for good reasons .”
(Emphasis supplied)
8.5 The Supreme Court thereafter went on to examine the scope and
ambit of the expression “sufficient cause” as contained in Order XLI
Rule 5, as would enable a Court to justifiably stay execution of a
money decree. In this regard, the Supreme Court held, in paras 82 to
87 of Lifestyle Equities , thus:
“ 82. Having regard to the case law discussed above and for
reasons to be recorded, we are inclined or rather persuaded to take
the view that the benefit of stay of execution of a money decree
may be granted by the Appellate Court unconditionally, if it:
i. is egregiously perverse;
ii. is riddled with patent illegalities;
iii. is facially untenable; and/or
iv. such other exceptional causes similar in nature.
83. The aforesaid factors would bring the case within the
purview of “exceptional case” for the purpose of granting benefit
of unconditional stay of the execution of money decree.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 7 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
84. We are at one with the submission canvassed on behalf of
the defendant that in contradistinction to Order XLI, the word
“deposit” does not figure in Rule 1(3), Rule 5(5) and Rule 5(3)
respectively.
85. Under Rule 5(3) sub-clause (c) - security has to be
furnished for “due performance” of the decree. We find it difficult
to read any mandate for direction to deposit the decretal amount.
86. As noted above, the provision under Order XLI Rule
5(3) of the CPC provides for satisfaction regarding sufficient cause
as a pre-condition for granting benefit of stay of execution of
decree. It casts an obligation upon the court to record its
satisfaction for stay of execution such decree. Therefore, security
can be in the shape of property, bond, or by undertaking from the
appellant to abide by the decree, seeking stay of execution.
87. However, there is no provision under Order XLI Rule 5 of
the CPC imposing a mandate to deposit cash security as the only
mode of security for execution of the decree.”
8.6 The prayer for stay of execution of the money decree under
challenge in the present case has to be examined in the light of the
principles now laid down by the Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities ,
particularly para 82 thereof.
9. Arguments, in these applications, were heard on 20 August
2025, 21 August 2025, 2 September 2025 and 9 September 2025. The
arguments were lengthy and compendious. Detailed written
submissions have also been filed by learned Counsel.
10. While we, no doubt because of the persuasive abilities of
learned Counsel who addressed us, were probably over-indulgent in
allowing arguments, we pen this judgment in acute awareness of the
fact that we are only adjudicating interim applications for stay of the
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 8 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
judgment and decree under challenge. We cannot, therefore, allow this
judgment to become a pre-emptive adjudication of all the issues
involved in the appeals. Our task is only to examine whether, within
the parameters of the law laid down in para 82 of Lifestyle Equities ,
stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree ought to be
granted and, if so, the terms to be fixed in that regard.
The dispute
11. The suit patent IN’255 relates to a method of converting
information words to a modulated signal. The technology used in this
regard, which forms subject matter of the suit patent is known as
12
“Eight-to-Fourteen Modulated + Coding” . The suit patent is in the
13
nature of a Standard Essential Patent , as it proffered to claim an
essential and integral industry standard in the manufacturing, storage
and replication of data in digital formats, as in Digital Versatile
14
Discs . This exercise involved converting a series of m-bit
information words into a modulated signal, with each information
word being converted into an n-bit code word, where both m and n are
integers with n being greater than m. These code words generate a
modulated signal, whereby 8-bit information words are encoded into
16-bit code words. This encoded information is then transmitted on to
lands and pits contained on the DVD which refer to elevated and
recessed areas on the surface of the DVD readable by laser.
12
“EFM+ coding”, hereinafter
13
“SEP”, hereinafter
14
“DVDs”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 9 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
12. Claims in the Suit Patent
12.1 There is no dispute that the principal subject matter of the suit
patent essentially claimed the technology involved in the EFM+
coding process. The claims in the suit patent read thus:
“1. Method of converting information words (1) to a modulated
signal (7), in which method a series of m-bit information words is
converted to a series of n-bit code words (4) according to rules of
conversion, and the series of code words are converted to the
modulated signal, with m and n being integers and n exceeding m,
the rules of conversion being such that the modulated signal
satisfies a predetermined criterion, and in which method one code
word (4) is delivered for one received information word (1), which
code word is selected from one of a plurality of sets (Vl,V2,V3,V4)
of code words, which one set is associated with a coding state
(Sl,S2,S3,S4) established when the preceding code word was
delivered, characterized in that the code words ( 4) are spread
over at least a group of a first type (G11, G12) and at least a group
of a second type (02), and in that the delivery of each of the code
words belonging to a group of the first type (G11, G12) establishes
a coding state (S1,S4) of a first type determined by said group of
the first type and the delivery of each of the code words belonging
to a group of the second type (G2) establishes a coding state
(S2,S3) of a second type determined by said group of the second
type and by the received information word (1), while any set
(V2,V3) of code words associated with a coding state (S2,S3) of
the second type contains no codewords in common with any other
set (V2,V3) of code words associated with any other coding state
(S2,S3) of the second type, and while at least one set(VI, V2, V3,
V 4) of code words comprises a codeword of a group of the second
type being associated with a plurality of information words, each
information word of said plurality establishing a different coding
state of the second type, thereby allowing to distinguish the
respective information word from said plurality by detecting the
following codeword.
2. Method as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the sequence of
information words is converted to the sequence of code words
according to such rules of conversion that the corresponding
modulated signal presents substantially no frequency components
in a low-frequency area in the frequency spectrum and in which
each number of successive bit cells having a same signal value in
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 10 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
the modulated signal is at least d+ 1 and at most k+ 1, the sets
(Vl,V2,V3,V4) of code words for each of at least a number of
information words comprising at least a pair of code words, low-
frequency components in the modulated signal (7) being avoided
when the information words are converted by selected code words
from the pairs of core words.
3. Method as claimed in Claim 2, wherein a running digital
sum value is established as a measure for current DC contents,
which value is determined over a preceding portion of the
modulated signal (7) and denotes for this portion the current value
of a difference between the number of bit cells having a first signal
value and the number of bit cel1 having a signal second value,
while the pairs comprising two code words have opposite effects
on the digital sum value and the code words are selected from the
pairs in response to certain digital sum values so that the digital
sum value continues to be limited.
4. Method as claimed in Claim 2 or 3, wherein the information
words are converted to a sequence of code words which establish a
bit string having bits of a first logical value and bits of a second
logical value, a number of successive bits having the first logical
value and situated among bits having the second logical value
being at least d and at most k, and the bit string being converted to
the modulated signal (7), in which transitions from bit cells having
the first signal value to bit cells having the second signal value or
vice versa correspond to the bits having the second logical value in
the bit string.
5. Method as claimed in one of the preceding Claims, wherein
the sets (V2,V3) of code words belonging to the coding states
(S2,S3) of the second type can be mutually distinguished on the
basis of the logical values of bits at predetermined bit positions· in
the code words, where p is an integer smaller than n.
6. Method as claimed in Claim 5, wherein the synchronization
(sync) words (100,101) are inserted into the series of code words,
the sync words showing bit patterns that cannot occur in the bit
string formed by the codewords, while the sync words are used·
having different bit patterns and the sync word used depends on the
coding state, in that a predetermined coding state is established for
the conversion of the next information word after a sync word has
been inserted, while the sync words are mutually distinguishable
on the basis of the logical values of bits at predetermined bit
positions in a manner corresponding to the manner in which the
sets of code words belonging to coding states of the second type
are mutually distinguishable.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 11 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
7. Method as claimed in one of the preceding Claims,
wherein d is equal to 2 and k is equal to 10 and in that the ratio of n
to m is 2:1.
8. Method as claimed in Claim 7, wherein m is equal to 8 and
n is equal to 16.
9. Method as claimed in one of the preceding Claims 5, 6, 7,
or 8,wherein p is equal to 2.
10. Method as claimed in Claim 6, 7, 8, or 9, wherein a first
group (G 11) of the first type of code words is formed by code
words ending in a bits having the first logical value, where a is
equal to 0 or 1, in that a second group (G12) of the first type of
code words is formed by code words ending in successive bits
having the first logical value, where b is an integer greater than or
equal to 6 and smaller than or equal to 9, the group (G2) of the
second type being formed by code words ending in c bits having
the first logical value, where c is an integer greater than or equal to
2 and smaller than or equal to 5,and the coding state (S1,S2,S3,S4)
related sets (Vl,V2,V3,V4) of code words from which the code
words assigned to the information words are selected are formed
by code words beginning with a number of bits of the first logical
value, which number of bits depends on the coding state related to
the set, so that the number of successive bits having the first logical
value in the bit string formed by two successive code words is at
least equal to d and at most equal to k.
11. Method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the p predetermined
bit positions are the first and thirteenth bit position in the following
code word.
12. Record carrier on which the modulated signal obtained by
the method claimed in any one of the preceding claims is provided
in a track.
13. Method of converting information words to a modulated
signal, substantially as herein described with reference to the
accompanying drawings.”
12.2 The dispute principally relates to Claim 12 of the claims in the
suit patent.
13. As is apparent from a bare glance at the Claims in the suit
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 12 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
patent, each of the Claims 1 to 11 and 13 are expressly method claims.
On the other hand, Claim 12, claims a “record carrier on which the
modulated signal obtained by the method claimed in any one of the
preceding claims is provided in a track”.
14. The essential dispute in so far as the aspect of infringement is
concerned, is whether the appellants have infringed Claim 12 in the
suit patent.
Contentions and Analysis
15. We now proceed to deal with the various issues raised by the
appellants by way of challenge to the impugned judgment, the
findings of the learned Single Judge on the said issues, and our view
on whether they make out a case to stay the execution of the impugned
judgment within the parameters identified in para 82 of Lifestyle
Equities .
16. The aspect of infringement
16.1 The stand of the appellants, pared down to its essentials, is that
they merely undertake a process of replication. This process of
replication does not involve EFM+ coding at any stage. They merely
replicate, on to their DVDs, the data which is already stored in
15
stampers which they obtained from Moser Baer India Ltd . It is in the
process of creation of these stampers that EFM+ coding is involved.
15
“Moser Baer” hereinafter
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 13 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
The process of replication of the data contained on the stampers on to
the DVDs of the appellants, which are then sold in the market, does
not involve any process of EFM+ coding. The data contained on the
stampers is merely transmitted into lands and pits contained on the
appellants’ DVDs. Inasmuch as EFM+ coding is the very raison
d’être of the suit patent and the process undertaken by the appellants
in replicating the data contained on the stampers obtained from Moser
Baer on to their DVDs does not involve the said EFM+ coding
process, it is contended that the DVDs of the appellants do not
infringe the suit patent. Paras 8, 12.1 to 12.1.7, 155 and 196 of the
impugned judgment set out the above stand of the defendant as
recorded by the learned Single Judge:
“8. The Defendants, on the other hand, acknowledge
replicating DVDs in significant volumes, but deny any
infringement of the Plaintiff's patent. They argue that claims of the
Suit Patent essentially entail a process for compression of data
applied in the manufacturing of an original DVD, that is distinct
from replication process deployed by them, which is purely a
mechanical process. The Defendants maintain that their replication
process does not involve the steps claimed in the Suit Patent, and
assert that they have obtained necessary documentation, including
copyright permissions from content owners to reproduce the
copies. Their defence also hinges on the argument that the EFM+
encoding process, which is one of the steps in their replication
process is outsourced to third parties, thus denying that their own
activities amount to infringement. In addition to the above, the
Defendants have also filed counter-claims challenging the validity
of the Suit Patent. They argue that the Suit Patent was wrongly
granted, raising allegations of fraud, concealment, and non-
compliance with the stipulations of the Patents Act.
*
12.1. On the aspect of infringement of the Suit Patent:
12.1.1. The Defendants are well-regarded in the industry and
replicate the DVDs only after securing the necessary copyright
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 14 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
documentations from the rightful owners. They have invested
substantial resources and labour to build their standing. The
Plaintiff, fully aware of Defendants’ market position, has initiated
these lawsuits solely to damage their reputation and disrupt their
business.
12.1.2. Defendant's DVD replication business does not infringe on
any of the Plaintiff's rights. They are conducting lawful and
legitimate businesses, while the Plaintiff is attempting to enforce
rights that are either inapplicable or likely to be revoked. The suits
have been filed with the intent to harass and extract unwarranted
financial gains from the Defendants, and therefore, the suits are not
maintainable.
12.1.3. The suits are barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence.
Admittedly, the Plaintiff has been aware of the activities of
Siddharth Optical, Pearl Engineering, and Powercube Infotech
th st th
since 09 May, 2005, 31 August, 2006, and 25 April, 2007,
respectively. Yet, the Plaintiff chose to file these suits between
May-September, 2012, after a delay of nearly six years. The
Plaintiff has offered no explanation for this extended delay. This
inaction amounts to acquiescence, rendering the suits
unsustainable, and liable to be dismissed.
12.1.4. The Suit Patent, which relates to channel modulation,
neither discloses a process nor a product necessary for the
replication of DVDs or the DVDs resulting from the replication
process in India. The Defendants have detailed their replication
processes, outlining each step involved, which shall be discussed
later in this judgment. The Defendants contended that at no stage,
either directly or indirectly, do they utilize the methods disclosed in
the claims of Suit Patent.
12.1.5. Taking into account the technical practices used in the
industry and the state of the art, the Suit Patent does not contain
any claims that are essential to the practice of DVD replication. In
this regard, the Defendants disputed the opinion of the patent
evaluator relied upon by the Plaintiff, which suggests that Suit
Patent is necessary for the execution of even a single step of the
DVD replication process.
12.1.6. The Defendants denied that the claims of the Suit Patent
have been analysed for essentiality in relation to DVD
specifications, particularly for Read-Only discs.
12.1.7. The Defendants are not bound by the Plaintiff's licensing
program as they do not use the method claims covered by the Suit
Patent, which makes the licensing program inapplicable to them.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 15 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
They further disputed the legitimacy of the alleged licensing
program of the Plaintiff, arguing that the alleged licensing
company, One-Red, and the website www.one-red.com was found
to be non-functional. Further, manufacturers and replicators of
DVDs and VCDs worldwide, including in India, have not obtained
relevant licenses from the Plaintiff for mass replication, as alleged.
The Plaintiff has concealed the fact that a significant number of
replicators have resisted the Plaintiff's so-called licensing
requirements and considerable litigation on this issue is pending
globally.
*
155. The Defendants’ objections regarding the construction of
claim 12 focus on its scope and applicability. They contended that
claims 1 to 11 of the Suit Patent pertain exclusively to the method
of converting information into a modulated signal using EFM+
coding. Claim 12 is directed at the resulting product, a record
carrier which stores the modulated signal obtained through the
execution of this method. They further asserted that none of the
claims encompass the physical manifestation of modulated data as
represented by the lands and pits on a DVD. According to the
Defendants, the Suit Patent covers only the process of compressing
and encoding information using EFM+ technology, and does not
extend to the final physical arrangement of data on the disc.
Therefore, they contended that the Plaintiff's assertion that any
DVD with this specific pattern automatically infringes the Suit
Patent overreaches the scope of its claims.
*
196. Next, the Court shall analyse the argument of indirect
infringement. As elaborated above, despite clear evidence of
infringement, the Defendants sought to deflect liability onto Moser
Baer and other suppliers of glass stampers, who execute the
patented process by asserting that they themselves do not engage in
the EFM+ encoding process protected by the Suit Patent. Instead,
the Defendants argued that their role is limited to replication,
which does not directly infringe the method claims of the Suit
Patent.”
16.2 Findings of the learned Single Judge
16.2.1 The learned Single Judge has addressed this submission, in
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 16 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
paras 154, 154.1, 154.2, 160, 161, 165 to 168, 171 to 174, 178, 182,
184, 188, 192, 199 to 201 and 204 to 205 of the impugned judgment,
thus:
“154. The Defendants have admitted that the DVDs they
manufacture contain data stored in the land and pit format,
conforming to the DVD Standard specifications. Despite this
acknowledgment, their defence hinges on the argument that their
replication process does not involve the initial laser beam burning
process described in the Suit Patent. Instead, they claim to rely on
mechanical replication techniques to reproduce an already encoded
master disc.
154.1 By making this distinction, the Defendants do not dispute
that the structure and data arrangement on their DVDs align with
the method of modulation and data encoding described in claims 1
to 11 of the Suit Patent. Rather, their contention is that because
they do not perform the EFM+ encoding process themselves, their
actions do not amount to infringement. However, this argument
implicitly acknowledges that the claims of the Suit Patent,
particularly those related to encoding and modulation, are
reflected in their end products.
154.2 In light of the above, the mapping of claims 1 to 11, and 13
to the infringing product becomes redundant for further analysis.
The crux of the Defendants’ defence rests on the interpretation of
claim 12, which pertains to the record carrier with the modulated
signal. Accordingly, the Court now proceeds to examine the
construction of claim 12 in the context of the Defendants’
arguments.
*
160. Claim 12, however, diverges from the process focus and
includes a “record carrier on which the modulated signal obtained
by the method claimed in any one of the preceding claims is
provided in a track.” Claim 12 covers the tangible product which
stores the modulated signal resulting from the method covered in
claims 1 to 11 and 13 : a record carrier, such as a DVD, that
stores the modulated signal created using the EFM+ coding
process described in the preceding claims. This claim emphasizes
the outcome of the patented method by covering any disc encoded
using the EFM+ process, ensuring that the data stored on the
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 17 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
medium adheres to the constraints and benefits of this particular
modulation technique.
161. The term ‘record carrier’ refers to any medium or material
that serves as a vessel for storing information, whether in analogue
or digital form. The complete specification of the Suit Patent,
delineates two primary types of record carriers - the ‘optically
detectable type’ and the ‘magnetically readable type.’. Medium
such as CDs, DVDs, tapes, and cassettes. CDs and DVDs fall
under the optically detectable type of record carriers as they are
read or written using optical technologies, such as lasers. On the
other hand, magnetically readable record carriers include cassette
tapes and vinyl records. Claim 12, shifting the focus from
procedural aspects to the resulting product, describes a record
carrier that embodies the technical characteristics imparted by the
EFM+ coding process. This enables the claim to extend its scope
to any medium that stores high-density data encoded according to
the EFM+ method. The flexibility of the term ‘record carrier’
allows it to cover a range of storage media, including but not
limited to DVDs, CDs, Blu-ray discs, or future technologies
capable of adopting similar encoding formats. The defining
criterion for the applicability of claim 12 lies not in the type of
medium, but in its encoded content - specifically, whether it holds a
modulated signal created using the patented EFM+ process. This
means that any storage medium meeting these technical
specifications falls within the protection of claim 12.
*
165. Upon a careful analysis of the claims and specifications,
the Court concludes that claim 12 is not restricted to discs
produced through any particular manufacturing process, such as
laser burning, nor is it confined to a specific technological method.
Instead, it broadly encompasses any record carrier that
incorporates the encoded EFM+ signal, irrespective of how it was
created. This distinction between the process of manufacturing and
the existence of a product is clearly articulated in the complete
specification of the Suit Patent.
166. The broad language of claim 12 implies that any record
carrier containing the EFM+ modulated signal, regardless of the
method of creation, falls within the scope of the Suit Patent. This
interpretation counters the Defendants’ argument that their
replication process does not infringe because it only reproduces
content from a master DVD, and does not involve the original
burning or encoding process. The Plaintiff's claim rests on the
presence of the EFM+ modulated signal within the replicated
product, which aligns with claim 12's requirements.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 18 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
167. The DVDs at issue in these proceedings are Read-Only
Memory DVDs, which are not writable with a laser. Instead, these
DVDs are produced through a process known as mould replication
used by the Defendants. It is important to note that the EFM+
signal specified in the Suit Patent can only be recorded using a
laser on writable DVDs, such as DVD-R or DVD-RW formats.
Therefore, should the Defendants’ replicated DVDs embody the
EFM+ signal created as described in claim 1, they would, without
a doubt, infringe upon claim 12. This conclusion holds regardless
of the method used for replication, as claim 12 encompasses any
record carrier that contains the modulated EFM+ signal. The
essential element is the presence of the specific encoded signal on
the disc, aligning with the scope of claim 12. Consequently, if the
Defendants’ actions result in producing DVDs that replicate the
patented modulation, it constitutes infringement of claim 12,
confirming liability under the asserted patent rights.
V.II.II . The Replication Process of the Defendants
168. The arguments raised by the Defendants require the Court
to assess whether the replication process, as carried out by them,
implicates the use of the patented technology itself, or whether it
merely reproduces the final product that incorporates such
technology, thereby shifting the focus to copyright protection . To
make this determination, it is essential to first examine the
replication process employed by the Defendants.
*
171. The Plaintiff's patent claims are drafted to cover not only
the process of encoding data through EFM+ modulation, but also
the resultant record carrier that embodies this encoded data. The
Defendants’ interpretation, which restricts the scope to the act of
laser burning alone, disregards the clear intent and language of
the claims . Such an interpretation not only misrepresents the scope
of the Suit Patent, but also undermines the technological
advancements it seeks to protect, including the compatibility and
standardization achieved through EFM+ encoding.
172. The Courts are required to interpret the claims as written,
without rewriting or narrowing them in ways that conflict with the
patentee's intended protection. In this case, the Defendants’ narrow
interpretation overlooks the invention, which explicitly
encompasses the creation and use of record carriers containing the
encoded signal, irrespective of the specific method used to produce
them. By attempting to limit the Suit Patent to certain production
methods, the Defendants fail to recognize that the claims extend to
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 19 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
any DVDs that incorporate the patented EFM+ technology,
including those produced using pre-encoded stampers. This
misinterpretation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the
scope of the claims, and ignores the principle that the patentee's
definition of their invention, as captured in the claims, is legally
binding.
173. The Defendants’ replication process for manufacturing
DVDs comprises two critical stages : (i) the creation of the glass
master and stamper, and (ii) the replication process. In the first
stage, which is outsourced to entities like Moser Baer, the EFM+
encoding is embedded onto the stamper. This step is pivotal, as it
incorporates the modulated signal described in the Suit Patent
onto the stamper, ensuring compatibility with the standardized
DVD format. The second stage, executed by the Defendants,
involves a mechanical stamping process, where the encoded
stamper is pressed against hot, moulded polycarbonate material to
replicate DVDs. This method enables mass production, yielding
hundreds or thousands of discs that inherently contain the EFM+
encoded signal. The evidence and disclosures provided by the
Defendants thus, unequivocally establish infringement.
174. The oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded during
crossexamination also suggests that all steps of replication - from
stamper production to the final disc - infringe the Suit Patent . …
*
178. Regarding direct infringement, as discussed above, the
Defendants’ replication process involves discs that incorporate the
EFM+ modulated signal, which directly infringes the Suit Patent.
All stages of replication process of the Defendants - from stamper
production to the final DVD - fall within the scope of the Suit
Patent's claims. Furthermore, under Section 48 of the Patents Act,
the patentee holds the exclusive right to prevent third parties, from
using the patented process or from selling products obtained
directly from that process, without their consent. Consequently, the
Plaintiff is entitled not only to prevent the use of their patented
method, but also to stop the sale of DVDs produced using the
patented process by the Defendants.
*
182. The Plaintiff has presented test reports prepared by their
expert, analyzing the Defendants’ DVDs purchased by the Plaintiff
[Ex. PW-2/10 in CS (Comm) 423/2016]. These test reports
conclude that the Defendants’ tested discs were encoded using the
EFM+ coding rules of the DVD Standard …….
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 20 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
*
184. Pertinently, during the final arguments, the Defendants did
not dispute the findings of PW-2 on this issue. Nonetheless, on
analysis of the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the Plaintiff,
and material on record, it is clear that the DVDs produced by the
Defendants conform to the DVD Standard. Therefore, the
Defendants have infringed the Suit Patent, which is an SEP.
*
188. It is evident that the Defendants’ defence that Moser Baer
produced the stampers under a valid license, was introduced for
the first time during final arguments, without any foundation in the
pleadings. Introducing this argument at the final stage undermines
the credibility of the Defendants’ defence . It suggests an attempt to
introduce an exculpatory explanation without foundational support
in the original pleadings or affidavits by way of evidence. Such
omissions are particularly significant given that the Plaintiff has
adduced documentary evidence, including correspondence from
Moser Baer, confirming the delivery of 3031 stampers to Pearl
Engineering and 5427 to Powercube Infotech. The Defendants
have neither asserted nor proven that Moser Baer was authorized
to pass on replication rights under any valid licensing agreement .
The absence of this defence in their written statement and failure to
substantiate their claim or present any evidence, raises serious
doubts about the Defendants’ case. On the contrary, it lends
credence to the Plaintiff's allegations that the replication activities
in question were unauthorized and in violation of the suit patent.
*
192. Clause 2.8 thus, explicitly clarifies that the license does not
include authorization for equipment, such as stampers, used in the
replication process. As per this clause, Moser Baer's activities
under the DVD License Agreement were not intended to involve
creating or distributing stampers for third-party use, such as the
Defendants’ replication processes .
*
199. The above chart indicates that Moser Baer/suppliers,
acting on the Defendants’ behalf, conducted steps that included
EFM+ encoding, thus potentially infringing claims 1 to 11 and 13
of the Suit Patent. The chart's layout delineates the specific stages
where the EFM+ encoding occurs, highlighting how the
Defendants sourced the encoded master for their replication
activities. By stressing upon their involvement, the Plaintiff has
invoked the doctrine of ‘indirect infringement,’ arguing that the
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 21 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
Defendants’ utilization of the stampers that admittedly entail the
patented claims, constitutes infringement of the Suit Patent.
200. There can be no cavil that the manufacture of the stampers
by Moser Baer or other suppliers of the Defendants necessarily
involves encoding data using the EFM+ method outlined in claims
1 to 11 and 13 of the Suit Patent . This process entails converting
information words into a series of code words through modulation,
aligning precisely with the Plaintiff's patented method. These
encoded stampers form the foundation for the replication process
that the Defendants’ use, embedding the EFM+ encoding in the
resulting DVD-ROMs. Claim 12 specifically covers a record
carrier, i.e., an object or article that carries the EFM+ encoded
data on it, including a DVD. The DVDs replicated by the
Defendants, using stampers produced by Moser Baer, meet the
criteria of claim 12 by embodying the modulated signal. Thus, the
end-product produced through the Defendants’ replication process
matches claim 12. The Defendants’ argument regarding the origin
of the EFM+ encoding - whether performed by Moser Baer or
otherwise - is immaterial to the question of infringement. The
existence of the EFM+ encoded signal on the replicated DVDs
alone establishes infringement of claim 12, as corroborated by the
testimony of PW-2. The replication process directly results in
DVDs that satisfy the parameters of claim 12, rendering the
Defendants liable for indirect infringement.
201. Even if the Defendants themselves do not perform the
process detailed in the claims of the Suit Patent, they are
producing and selling DVDs that are the direct outcome of the
patented process. This activity also infringes the Plaintiff's
exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act.
*
204. The Defendants, in an attempt to deflect liability, raised the
defence that their manufacturing activities were outsourced to a
licensee of the Plaintiff only at the stage of final arguments. This
argument was neither pleaded nor substantiated during trial, and
no evidence was led to demonstrate that Moser Baer or any other
supplier held a valid and subsisting license covering the
production of stampers for third-party replication. The belated
nature of this defence, coupled with the absence of supporting
evidence, renders it untenable.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 22 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
204.1 Under the doctrine of indirect patent infringement, a third-
party infringer can be held liable for the actions of others if they
collaborated and acted in a concerted manner to undermine the
patentee's rights. In cases involving SEPs, the doctrine of indirect
infringement gains significance. A party may be held liable for
indirect infringement if they facilitate or enable the use of a
patented technology covered by the standard. For instance, this
could include manufacturing or supplying components specifically
designed for standard-compliant products, or providing technical
assistance to implementers.
204.2 The replication process ordered and outsourced by the
Defendants involves steps directly covered by the Suit Patent. The
final DVD-ROMs replicated under this process contain the EFM+
encoded signals as stipulated in claims 1 to 11 and 13 of the Suit
Patent. Thereafter, the Defendants employ a process of physical
stamping, by which the same pits and bumps are transferred onto
discs in large quantities. This act of replication, which culminates
in DVDs produced by the stamping process described above,
constitutes an infringement of claim 12. By commissioning and
utilizing stampers embedded with the patented encoding, the
Defendants knowingly facilitate the production of infringing DVDs.
The acts of third parties such as Moser Baer, who manufacture the
stampers containing the EFM+ encoding at the Defendants’
request, does not absolve the Defendants’ liability. Under the law
of agency and vicarious liability, the Defendants bear
responsibility for the acts of Moser Baer as their agent. This
shared intention and execution of actions that result in the
production of infringing DVDs underscore the existence of a
common design, making both the Defendants and their
collaborators equally liable for patent infringement.
204.3 The Defendants and Moser Baer acted collaboratively,
contributing to the production and replication of DVDs that
incorporated the patented technology. This collaboration does not
exonerate the Defendants from liability, as both parties contribute
to the same infringing outcome and are equally accountable under
the principles of joint tortfeasance.
Findings
205. In view of the foregoing analysis, the following issues are
answered in favor of the Plaintiff, and against the Defendants
holding them liable for infringement of the Suit Patent:
i. Issues No. 3 and 4 in CS (Comm) 423/2016,
ii. Issues No. 4 and 5 in CS (Comm) 519/2018, and
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 23 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
iii. Issues No. (v) and (viii) in CS (Comm) 499/2018 .”
16.2.2 In the afore-extracted paragraphs, the learned Single Judge has
essentially held as under:
(i) The appellants admitted that the DVDs manufactured by
them contained data stored in the lands and pits conformed to
the DVD standard specifications and that the arrangement of the
data on their DVDs aligned with the method of modulation and
data encoding described in Claims 1 to 11 of the suit patent.
Thus, they implicitly acknowledged the fact that the claims in
the suit patent, particularly relating to encoding and modulation,
were reflected in their end products.
(ii) While Claims 1 to 11 were method claims, Claim 12 was
not exclusively a method claim. Claim 12 claimed a record
carrier on which the modulated signal obtained by the method
claimed in Claims 1 to 11 was provided in a track. Thus, Claim
12 claimed a tangible product, which stored the modulated
signal forming subject matter of Claims 1 to 11. Whereas the
creation of the modulated signal claimed in Claims 1 to 11
involve the EFM+ coding process, it was not necessary that the
EFM+ coding process was involved in Claim 12. Claim 12
emphasized the outcome of the method claimed in Claims 1 to
11.
(iii) The learned Single Judge has interpreted the expression
“record carrier” to mean any medium or material, which serves
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 24 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
as a vessel for storing information, whether in analog or digital
form. CDs and DVDs are also, therefore, “record carriers”.
Claim 12, therefore, shifted the focus from the methods claimed
in claims 1 to 11 to the carrier in which the data encoded using
the EFM+ encoding technique was stored or replicated. Claim
12 was, therefore, in the nature of a product claim, whereas
unlike claims 1 to 11, which were method claims. Any medium
which stored high density data encoded according to the EFM+
method would, therefore, fall within Claim 12.
(iv) The interrelationship between Claim 12 and Claims 1 to
11 has been understood in para 161 of the impugned judgment
as only involving the issue of whether the record carrier claimed
in Claim 12 held the modulated signal created using the EFM+
process claimed in Claim 1 to 11. Any storage medium, which
did so, would be covered by Claim 12, which broadly
encompassed any record carrier which incorporated the encoded
EFM+ signal. The manner in which the record carrier was
created was irrelevant. What had to be seen was whether, in the
entire process from the conversion of 8-bit information words to
16-bit code words to the replication of the converted
information into the lands and pits contained in the appellants’
DVDs, the EFM+ coding process was involved at any stage.
(v) Inasmuch as Claim 12 covered the record carrier
containing the EFM+ modulated signal , the learned Single
Judge has found the submission of the appellants that DVDs
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 25 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
manufactured and sold by them did not infringe Claim 12, as
they were not involved in the original wording and encoding
process, to be without substance. Inasmuch as the EFM+
modulated signal was contained on the replicated DVDs of the
appellants, the learned Single Judge has found the DVDs to
infringe Claim 12.
(vi) In other words, the learned Single Judge has effectively
held that, if the data was encoded using the EFM+ technique
and that data was contained on the DVDs manufactured and
sold by the appellants, the DVDs would themselves infringe the
suit patent, irrespective of the process involved in replicating
the data on to the DVDs. So long as the link between the data
encoded using the EFM+ process and the DVDs of the
appellants were found to exist, the learned Single Judge has
held that infringement stands committed .
(vii) Claim 12 has been interpreted by the learned Single
Judge to cover not only the process of encoding data through
EFM+ modulation, but also the resultant record carrier that
embodies its encoded data. The interpretation placed on Claim
12 by the appellants has been found to unduly restrict the scope
of the claim and to be contrary to its clear intent and language.
Claim 12 could not be restricted to production methods.
(viii) In para 173 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge acknowledges the fact that the replication process
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 26 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
resulting in the emergence of the final DVD, which was
released in the market, comprised both the stage of creation of
the stamper, which was outsourced to Moser Baer, and
replication of the DVD from the stamper . The learned Single
Judge also acknowledges, in the same paragraph, the fact that
the process actually undertaken by the appellants was of
mechanical stamping, whereby the stamper was pressed against
hot molded poly carbonate material to replicate DVDs. The
DVDs which emerged from this process, however, contained
the EFM+ encoded signal. This very fact, according to the
learned Single Judge, resulted in the DVDs infringing Claim 12
of the suit patent.
(ix) The learned Single Judge has also sought to support his
conclusion by applying the principle of indirect infringement.
For this purpose, the learned Single Judge has noted that the suit
patent claimed a SEP. Inasmuch as the final DVD which was
created by the appellants, and the SEP forming subject matter of
the suit patent, mapped to the same standard, the DVDs
infringed the suit patent, applying the principle of indirect
infringement.
(x) The learned Single Judge has, in para 199 of the
impugned judgment, acknowledged the fact that the actual
process which infringed Claims 1 to 11 and 13 of the suit
patent, i.e. the EFM+ encoding procedure, was undertaken, not
by the appellants, but by Moser Baer. The DVDs which were
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 27 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
manufactured and sold by the appellants, however, replicated
the data contained on the stampers of Moser Baer which had
itself been encoded using the EFM+ technique. The fact that the
EFM+ method, forming subject matter of Claims 1 to 11 and 13
of the suit patent, was involved in incorporating the data on the
stampers which were thereafter supplied to the appellants, was
not in dispute. The record carrier manufactured and sold by the
appellants, which carried the said EFM+ encoded data, was,
therefore, ex facie covered by Claim 12 of the suit patent.
Coverage under claim 12 was not dependent on the entity which
undertook the EFM+ coding procedure. In the words of the
learned Single Judge, “the existence of EFM+ encoded signal
on the replicated DVDs alone establishes infringement of claim
12”. By producing and selling DVDs, which were direct
outcomes of the process claimed in Claims 1 to 11 and 13, the
learned Single Judge has found the appellants to be infringing
Claim 12.
(xi) In any event, the very manufacture and distribution of
DVDs containing the data encoded using the EFM+ technology,
in the ultimate manufacture of which the encoding of the data
on the stampers was also an essential part, amounted to
infringement of the suit patent, within the meaning of Section
16
48 of the Patents Act.
16
48. Rights of patentees .—Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and the conditions
specified in Section 47, a patent granted under this Act shall confer upon the patentee—
( a ) where the subject-matter of the patent is a product, the exclusive right to prevent third
parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or
importing for those purposes that product in India;
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 28 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
(xii) Paras 204 and 204.1 to 204.3 of the impugned judgment
summarized the above findings.
16.3 Submission of the appellants, and our view
16.3.1 The submissions advanced before us, by learned Counsel for the
appellants, we find, were also advanced before the learned Single
Judge and have been adequately addressed in the impugned judgment.
Essentially, the appellants have once again sought to distance
themselves from the procedures culminating in the production of the
stampers by Moser Baer. They have reiterated the submission that, in
the process of replication of data onto the DVDs by them, which are
later sold in the market, the process of EFM+ Coding has no part to
play. The entire thrust of their submissions is that the suit patent is
essentially claiming the method/process of EFM+ Coding and that, as
the purely mechanical process of stamping, undertaken by the
appellants, does not involve this process, it cannot be said that the
appellants infringe any claim in the suit patent.
16.3.2 We find the submissions to have been comprehensively
addressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The
learned Single Judge has, in paras 171 and 172 of the impugned
judgment, disagreed with the appellants’ contention that Claim 12 in
the suit patent was also intended only to cover the EFM+ encoding
( b ) where the subject-matter of the patent is a process, the exclusive right to prevent third
parties, who do not have his consent, from the act of using that process, and from the act of using,
offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes the product obtained directly by that
process in India:
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 29 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
process. The learned Single Judge has interpreted the words used in
Claim 12, particularly the reference to “a record carrier” to include
any tangible medium, including a DVD, which carried material, the
incorporation of which involved the EFM+ coding process. The
learned Single Judge has, in para 173 of the impugned judgment,
adopted the view that the creation of the glass master and stamper was
an integral part of the complete process for manufacturing the DVDs.
The mere fact that this process might have been outsourced to Moser
Baer, according to the learned Single Judge, would not make a
difference to the character of the ultimate product, the creation of
which involved, as an integral step, the encoding of data onto the
stamper, using the EFM+ Coding procedure.
16.3.3 This interpretation may, or may not, ultimately sustain scrutiny
when the appeals are heard. It is clear, however, that it is not an
impossible interpretation of Claim 12. In any event, it cannot be
treated to be “egregiously perverse”, “ridden with patent illegality” or
“facially untenable” and cannot, therefore, constitute a basis to stay
the execution of the impugned judgment and decree, in view of the
enunciation of the law in para 82 of Lifestyle Equities .
17. Validity of the Suit Patent
17.1 Before the learned Single Judge, the appellants also questioned
the validity of the suit patent. No detailed submissions on this aspect
were advanced before us in Court. However, in the written
submissions that the appellants have filed, they have also reiterated
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 30 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
these grounds.
17.2 To our mind, the question of validity of the suit patent is
essentially a matter to be considered while appreciating evidence in
the appeals. Nonetheless, we advert briefly to the appellants’
contentions in that regard.
17.3 Re: Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act
17.3.1 The appellants contended that the suit patent was vulnerable to
17
revocation under Section 64(1)(m) of the Patents Act as it had failed
18
to disclose complete information as required by Section 8(1) ,
inasmuch as details of previous applications filed by the respondent
were not disclosed.
17.3.2 The learned Single Judge has, after examining the entire matter
and taking into account the available evidence, held that there was no
17
64. Revocation of patents .—
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent, whether granted before or after
the commencement of this Act, may, [be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the
Central Government or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High
Court] on any of the following grounds, that is to say,—
*
( m ) that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the Controller the
information required by Section 8 or has furnished information which in any material
particular was false to his knowledge;
18
8. Information and undertaking regarding foreign applications .—
(1) Where an applicant for a patent under this Act is prosecuting either alone or jointly with
any other person an application for a patent in any country outside India in respect of the same or
substantially the same invention, or where to his knowledge such an application is being prosecuted
by some person through whom he claims or by some person deriving title from him, he shall file
along with his application [or subsequently [within the prescribed period as the Controller may
allow]]—
[( a ) a statement setting out detailed particulars of such application; and]
( b ) an undertaking that, up to the date of [grant of patent] in India he would keep
the Controller informed in writing, from time to time, of [detailed particulars as required
under] clause ( a ) in respect of every other application relating to the same or substantially
the same invention, if any, filed in any country outside India subsequently to the filing of
the statement referred to in the aforesaid clause, within the prescribed time.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 31 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
evidence to indicate that any material information had been withheld
by the respondent as would have altered the grant of the suit patent.
17.3.3 The conclusion of the learned Single Judge on this aspect reads
thus:
“63. Section 64(1)(m) provides for the revocation of a patent on
the ground that the patentee has failed to disclose to the Patent
Office the required information, or has furnished materially false
information. While the errors in handling the disclosures ideally
should have been avoided, they cannot be construed as a deliberate
act of suppression by the Plaintiff.
63.1 The Defendants, for their part, have failed to establish that
any material information was knowingly withheld by the
prosecuting attorney or that the omission was intended to mislead
the Patent Office. More importantly, they have not demonstrated
how the omitted details, if provided, would have altered the grant
of the Suit Patent, particularly when the corresponding foreign
applications remained valid and enforceable throughout the patent
term.
63.2 In contrast, the Plaintiff has placed evidence on record
showing that, at the time of filing, the disclosures made under
Section 8 were based on the best available data within its internal
records. Given the dynamic nature of patent portfolios across
multiple jurisdictions, the process of updating such records is
inherently complex and subject to administrative oversight.
63.3 A mere clerical or inadvertent error in updating foreign
patent statuses, without any evidence of bad faith or intent to
mislead, cannot be a ground for revocation.
63.4 For these reasons, the Court finds that the objections under
Section 64(1)(m) are without merit and do not justify invalidating
the Suit Patent.”
17.3.4 The afore extracted findings of the learned Single Judge are
pure findings of facts and have not been seriously traversed by the
appellants. In any event, in view of the said findings, it cannot be said
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 32 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
that the appellants have made out a prima facie case regarding the
plea that the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation under Section
64(1)(m) of the Patents Act as would justify staying the impugned
judgment and decree.
19
17.4 Re. Section 64(1)(e) of the Patents Act
17.4.1 The appellants contended that the claims in the suit patent were
20
obvious from the disclosures contained in US patent 5206646 of
Sony Group Corporation, which was titled ‘digital modulating
method’.
17.4.2 The learned Single Judge has differentiated US’646 from the
suit patent thus in paras 79 to 83 of the impugned judgment, which
read thus:
“79. The Court has examined the submissions and evidence on
record. For a patent to be invalidated on the grounds that the
invention claimed was not new, or was publicly known or used
before the priority date, the prior art must comprehensively
disclose or anticipate the claimed invention. Therefore, in assessing
the Defendants’ challenge, it is essential to consider whether the
Sony Patent discloses or anticipates the invention claimed in the
Suit Patent, in its entirety. This means that the Sony Patent must
disclose every feature of the Suit Patent, with the same
arrangement and functionality.
19
64. Revocation of patents .—
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent, whether granted before or after
the commencement of this Act, may, [be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the
Central Government [ *] or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the
High Court] on any of the following grounds, that is to say,—
*
( e ) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is
not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the
priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the
documents referred to in Section 13;
20
“US’646”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 33 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
80. The Sony Patent describes a digital modulation method that
converts 8-bit data into 16-bit channel bits. This process uses
successive 14-bit channel bits, similar to the Eight-to-Fourteen
Modulation method, and includes two consecutive ‘0.’ Figures 2A-
2G of the Sony Patent clearly illustrate this encoding process. In
contrast, the Suit Patent introduces EFM+ encoding, a novel
mechanism that addresses a key limitation of earlier EFM
technologies, including the Sony Patent. Specifically, the Suit
Patent resolves the ambiguity in decoding that arises when a 16-bit
channel code corresponds to multiple 8-bit data words. This issue
is inherent in the Sony Patent, but is not addressed or resolved
therein. The Suit Patent, on the other hand, provides a unique
solution through a method that ensures one-to-one correspondence
between code words and data words, achieving unambiguous
decoding. This feature is explicitly detailed in the specification and
claims of the Suit Patent.
81. A fundamental difference between the two patents lies in
the capacity of the Suit Patent to eliminate the decoding ambiguity
present in the Sony Patent. In the Sony Patent, a 16-bit channel
code may not uniquely identify a single 8-bit data word, leading to
potential errors during decoding. The Suit Patent resolves this
limitation by employing advanced classification and coding
techniques, as described in its claims and look-up tables. This
novel feature differentiates the Suit Patent from the Sony Patent,
making it new. The Sony Patent is primarily focused on channel
modulation, with its innovation residing in the specific
arrangement of channel bits for the EFM process. While it may
perform 8-bit to 16-bit conversion, it does not go beyond this to
address challenges such as decoding precision and storage
efficiency. In contrast, the Suit Patent provides a framework that
not only encodes data but also ensures efficient storage and
unambiguous decoding, making it distinct in both scope and
functionality.
82. To better understand the distinction between the Suit Patent
and the Sony Patent, we imagine a situation where one is
translating a message into a secret code. In the Sony Patent, the
translation process converts 8-letter words into 16-letter encoded
words. However, some of these encoded words may correspond to
more than one original 8-letter word, making it unclear which
message was initially sent - a problem akin to receiving two
identical keys for different locks. This ambiguity can lead to errors
when decoding the message. In contrast, the Suit Patent introduces
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 34 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
an innovative mechanism that ensures each encoded 16-letter word
corresponds to only one unique 8-letter word. It achieves this by
classifying and selecting code words in such a way that decoding is
precise and unambiguous, akin to having a unique key for each
lock. Furthermore, the Suit Patent achieves this while maintaining
higher data efficiency, allowing more information to be stored on a
DVD. This critical advancement solves the ambiguity problem and
ensures the compatibility and reliability of DVDs, setting it apart
from the Sony Patent.
83. The EFM+ modulation, which constitutes the heart of the
Suit Patent, is more than just an 8-to-16-bit conversion. It involves
a specific set of rules and processes for encoding that allow unique
identification of information words during decoding - elements
absent from the cited prior art. PW-2 categorically denied that the
Sony Patent discloses the EFM+ modulation as claimed in the Suit
Patent. He clarified that while the Sony Patent does disclose a
converter that receives 8-bit binary input signals and outputs 16-bit
signals, it implements a different method of conversion compared
to the method claimed in the Suit Patent. This assertion reinforces
the Plaintiff's position that the specific conversion methodology in
the Suit Patent is distinct and not disclosed by prior art. The
testimony of PW-2 directly challenges the Defendants’ contention
that the Sony Patent anticipates the claimed invention.
17.4.3 Apart from reiterating the contention that the US’646 patent
anticipated the suit patent, the appellants have not, either in oral or in
written submissions, traversed the findings of the learned Single Judge
as contained in paras 79 to 83 of the impugned judgment, extracted
supra . On this aspect, too, therefore, it cannot be said that a case for
granting stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree is
made out, especially considering the fact that it is a money decree.
21
17.5 Re. Section 64(1)(j) of the Patents Act
21
64. Revocation of patents .—
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent, whether granted before or after
the commencement of this Act, may, [be revoked on a petition of any person interested or of the
Central Government or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent by the High
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 35 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
17.5.1 The appellants contended that the suit patent was initially filed
vide Application No.136/CAL/1995 before the Kolkata Bench of the
Patent Office. This application was abandoned. Thereafter, the suit
patent was filed as a divisional patent to the parent application in
22
accordance with Section 16(1) of the Patents Act, at the Chennai
Branch of the Patent Office. The contents and the documents of the
parent and divisional applications were identical, so that the divisional
application, it was submitted, was not maintainable. These facts, it is
submitted, were suppressed in the suits instituted by the respondents.
17.5.2 The learned Single Judge has examined the submission that
there was no difference between the parent application and the
divisional application.
17.5.3 The learned Single Judge dealing with this aspect, has observed
that the suit patent, along with the five other patents, stemmed from
the same parent application. However, as one application could claim
only one invention, the suit patent had to be filed as a divisional
application. No infirmity was found in this procedure. The findings of
the learned Single Judge on this aspect as contained in para 101 of the
impugned judgment, which reads thus:
“101. The Defendants’ argument that the Divisional Application
for the Suit Patent impermissibly overlaps with the Parent
Court] on any of the following grounds, that is to say,—
*
( j ) that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation;
22
16. Power of Controller to make orders respecting division of application .—
(1) A person who has made an application for a patent under this Act may, at any time before
the [grant of the patent], if he so desires, or with a view to remedy the objection raised by the
Controller on the ground that the claims of the complete specification relate to more than one
invention, file a further application in respect of an invention disclosed in the provisional or
complete specification already filed in respect of the first mentioned application.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 36 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
Application overlooks the statutory mandate that a single patent
application cannot encompass multiple inventions. The Defendants
have failed to establish a credible challenge to the Suit Patent based
on non-compliance with Section 16. Their objection is solely
premised on the alleged overlap of claims between the Parent and
Divisional Applications, lacking substantiation. Given that the
Divisional Application originated from the Parent Application, the
Parent Application is expected to originally contain the same or
related claims. The afore-noted analysis confirms that the claims in
Suit Patent are distinct from those in the Parent Application,
thereby meeting the legal requirement under Section 16 to avoid
double-patenting.”
17.5.4 Before us, the appellants have contended that the issue was not
as to whether the divisional application was, or was not maintainable,
but of suppression of facts.
17.5.5 Given the findings of the learned Single Judge, we are of the
opinion that no prima facie case of suppression of facts, as would
justify staying the impugned money decree, can be said to exist. Even
otherwise, the issue of suppression of facts is essentially a matter
which would require examination of the merits of the appeal.
17.6 In view of the aforesaid, no such prima facie case, on the aspect
of validity of the suit patent can be said to have been made out by the
appellants, as would satisfy the requirements of para 80 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities , which sets out
the grounds on which a money decree can be stayed.
18. Re. plea of vicarious liability
18.1 Learned counsel for the appellants have also sought to contend
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 37 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
that, without any factual foundation in that regard, contained in the
pleadings in the suits, the learned Single Judge has made the
appellants vicariously liable for the infringement of the suit patent, if
any, which took place at the end of Moser Baer.
18.2 In view of our findings and observations on the aspect of
infringement, as well as the findings of the learned Single Judge in
that regard, we are unable to agree with this contention of the
appellants. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the premise
that Claim 12 in the suit patent is not a mere method claim but also
claims the device on which the data, which was incorporated on the
stampers by using the EFM+ modulation technique, was replicated.
As the appellants had manufactured and sold the said DVDs, the
learned Single Judge has held that the appellants had infringed the suit
patent, especially given the width and amplitude of Section 48 of the
Patents Act.
18.3 Inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has found the appellants
themselves to be complicit in infringing the suit patent, the question of
vicarious liability does not arise.
18.4 The entire controversy, ultimately narrows down to the
interpretation of Claim 12 in the suit patent. If the interpretation as
provided by the learned Single Judge is upheld, the appellant would be
as liable for infringing the suit patent as Moser Baer. We have already
held, that at this prima facie stage, that the findings of the learned
Single Judge are not so egregiously perverse as would merit a stay of
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 38 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
the impugned judgment on that basis. The plea of vicarious liability,
therefore, cannot come to the aid of the appellants.
19. Re. Computation of damages
19.1 The appellants have also questioned the manner in which the
damages have been computed by the learned Single Judge and, on this
point, we are of the opinion that the appellants have a talking point.
19.2 Royalty rate
19.2.1 In view of the fact that the suit patent is an SEP, damages,
consequent to a finding of infringement, would have to be computed
on the basis of the royalty to which the respondent would be entitled
23
at FRAND rates. On this aspect, there is no dispute.
19.2.2 The impugned judgment has, in paras 211 to 213, worked out
the FRAND royalty rate payable to the respondent as US $ 0.03 per
DVD. The appellants have not, either in their oral or in their written
submissions, questioned the correctness of this royalty rate or pleaded
that it is not FRAND. Once the FRAND royalty rate of US $ 0.03 per
DVD was thus determined, all that remained was for the learned
Single Judge to assess the number of DVDs, which had been
replicated by the appellants.
19.3 Re. number of stampers sourced from Moser Baer, and number
23
Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 39 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
of DVDs replicated
19.3.1 From this point, we will have to deal with the individual appeals
separately.
19.3.2 Re. RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025
19.3.2.1 The main appellant, in this appeal, is Appellant 2, Pearl
24
Engineering Company .
19.3.2.2 The learned Single Judge has, towards this end, noted, in
detail, as to how Pearl Engineering was not forthcoming with data
regarding the number of DVDs which had been replicated by it out of
the stampers provided by Moser Baer. As a result, the respondent had
to communicate with Moser Baer seeking details regarding the
number of stampers supplied by them to Pearl Engineering. Moser
Baer, in its reply, provided the requisite details, which confirmed that,
during the period 14 July 2008 to 30 May 2015, Moser Baer had
supplied 3031 stampers to Pearl Engineering. The learned Single
Judge notes in para 242 of the impugned judgment that the
authenticity of this document was not questioned by the appellants.
From this, the learned Single Judge has extrapolated the number of
stampers supplied to the appellants during the period of three years
prior to filing of the suit, till expiry of the suit patent on 12 January
2015, as 2500.
24
“Pearl Engineering” hereinafter
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 40 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
19.3.2.3 The correctness of this figure has not been questioned by
the appellants. Even otherwise, at this prima facie stage, we are not
inclined to discredit the finding of the learned Single Judge in that
regard. Even otherwise, given the fact that Pearl Engineering was not
forthcoming regarding the number of stampers that they had procured
from Moser Baer, we find no reason, at this prima facie stage, to
discredit the figure of 2500, as representing the number of stampers
supplied by Moser Baer to Pearl Engineers during the relevant period.
19.3.2.4 The last and final task which remained with the learned
Single Judge, once the per DVD applicable FRAND royalty rate of
US $ 0.03, and the number of stampers supplied by Moser Baer to
Pearl Engineering as 2500, had been determined, was to assess the
number of DVDs, which could be replicated from 2500 stampers.
19.3.2.5 Here, in our considered opinion, the impugned judgement
falters, seriously.
19.3.2.6 Regarding the number of DVDs which could have been
replicated by Pearl Engineering out of 2500 stampers sourced from
Moser Baer, the learned Single Judge holds, in para 259.2 of the
impugned judgement, thus:
“259.2. Since Pearl Engineering has failed to provide sales
records despite court directions, which warrants an adverse
inference, the Court must estimate the number of DVDs replicated
by them based on the best available evidence . In this context, the
only reliable evidence that provides a definitive figure is the
communication from Moser Baer [Mark Q-1], which confirms the
th
supply of 3031 stampers to Pearl Engineering from 18 July, 2008
th
to 30 May, 2015. Considering these figures, the Court will
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 41 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
extrapolate the figures for the stampers for the period three years
prior to the filing of the suit until the expiry of the Suit Patent on
th
12 February, 2015 as 2500 . The Defendants’ own promotional
material (Ex. DW-1/P9) advertised delivering over 100 million
DVDs, which directly contradicts their attempt to downplay
replication volumes. Sans any definitive evidence regarding the
number of DVDs that can be produced from a single stamper, the
Court adopts a reasonable estimate of 10,000 DVDs per stamper
which shall apply in all the three suits . Accordingly, the total
number of DVDs replicated is estimated as 2,50,00,000 DVDs .”
19.3.2.7 It is plainly apparent that the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge, in the afore-extracted para 259.2, is flawed. The learned
Single Judge first observes that, in the absence of any material having
been provided in that regard by Pearl Engineering, the Court would
have to estimate the number of DVDs replicated on the basis of the
best available evidence. There can be no cavil whatsoever with this
proposition. The “best available evidence” would, however, have to be
evidence regarding the number of DVDs replicated from the stampers
sourced from Moser Baer.
19.3.2.8 Unfortunately, no such evidence was forthcoming, and
the learned Single Judge has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of a
hypothetical presumption that 10,000 DVDs could be replicated from
one stamper. There is no basis whatsoever, on the record, or
otherwise disclosed in the impugned judgement, to sustain this
presumption. It appears, therefore, to be entirely the ipse dixit of the
learned Single Judge.
19.3.2.9 One may ask – Why 10,000? Why not 50,000, or, for
that matter, 1000?
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 42 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
19.3.2.10 There is no basis forthcoming, from the impugned
judgment for the figure of 10,000 DVDs per stamper, which the
learned Single Judge has adopted in para 259.2. Though the learned
Single Judge characterizes this figure as a “reasonable estimate”,
there is no material on the basis of which it can be asserted that this
figure is reasonable. By applying the said figure of 10000 DVDs per
stamper, the learned Single Judge has assumed that, during the period
in issue, Pearl Engineering replicated 2,50,00,000 DVDs.
19.3.2.11 Such a conclusion, based on the presumptive estimate of
10,000 DVDs being replicated from one stamper, is prima facie
unsustainable.
19.3.2.12 In fact, in the cross-examination of DW-1 in CS (Comm)
499/2018, the proprietor of Powercube Infotech LLP [Appellant 2 in
RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025], a specific suggestion was put by the
respondent, to which the witness answered, thus:
“Q.162 I put it to you that although the capacity per stamper
is 25000 PVP Video Discs, to put it at the very lowest, you have
produced a minimum of 10,000., DVD Video Discs per stamper.
Ans. Since I was not involved in the day to day activities but I
think this is your wrong calculation.”
19.3.2.13 We may note that, even in arguments before us, both oral
as well as in their written submissions, the respondents have not been
able to support the presumption of the learned Single Judge that one
stamper would replicate 10,000 DVDs.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 43 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
19.3.2.14 This finding, in our considered opinion, would make out
a case for consideration of the appellant’s case of stay of the
impugned judgement, even within the criteria envisaged in para 80 of
Lifestyle Equities .
19.3.3 Re. RFA (OS) (Comm) 12/2025
19.3.3.1 This prima facie conclusion of ours applies mutatis
mutandis to RFA (OS) (Comm) 12/2025. In that case, based on the
information provided by Moser Baer, the learned Single Judge has
worked out the number of stampers supplied to Powercube Infotech,
Appellant 2 in the appeal, during the relevant period, as 4993. We
presume, for the purpose of the present order, that this figure is
acceptable.
19.3.3.2 Here again, by applying the assumed figure of 10,000
DVDs per stamper, the learned Single Judge has worked out the
number of DVDs replicated by Powercube Infotech, as 4,99,30,000
DVDs.
19.3.3.3 For the reasons already set out by us in paras 19.3.2.6 to
19.3.2.14 supra , this conclusion is prima facie unsustainable in law, as
there is no basis, whatsoever, for the assumption that, from one
stamper, 10000 DVDs could be replicated.
19.3.4 Re. RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 44 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
19.3.4.1 In the case of RFA(OS)(Comm) 13/2025, in which the
main appellant is Siddharth Opticals, the learned Single Judge has, in
para 259.4 of the impugned judgment, held as under:
“259.4. DW-1, in his deposition, stated that Siddharth
Optical ceased operations in 2011-2012. The evidence further
suggests that additional DVDs were produced beyond the 2006 to
2009 period. Considering the lack of sales records, the Court
applies a reasonable and conservative projection based on the
assumption that the production rate remained stable over the
subsequent years. Since no evidence suggests a decline in output,
and considering the industry practice of maintaining consistent
production levels, the Court estimates that the DVD production
th
would have only grown. 259.5. The Suit was filed on 28 May
th
2012 and Patent remained in force until 12 February 2015.
Therefore, damages are being assessed from three years prior to the
th
suit filing date (i.e., from 28 May 2009) until the cessation of
business operations in 2012. Applying this estimation
methodology, the Court determines that Siddharth Optical likely
manufactured and sold approximately 65,00,000 DVDs during this
period. This estimate shall serve as the basis for computing royalty
damages.”
19.3.4.2 There is no basis forthcoming, in the impugned
judgment, for the assumption that Siddharth Opticals manufactured
and sold 65,00,000 DVDs during the period in issue.
19.3.5 Resultantly, we have no option but to hold that, on the
aspect of computation of damages, precisely on the aspect of the
estimation of the number of DVDs which could be replicated from one
stamper, and the number of DVDs replicated by the appellants,
therefore, during the period in issue, the finding of the learned Single
Judge is based on a presumption for which no supportive material is
forthcoming. We are convinced, therefore, that, on the aspect of
computation of damages, the prayer for stay, by the appellants, merits
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 45 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
some degree of favourable consideration, even within the limited
parameters delineated in para 80 of Lifestyle Equities .
20. The Sequitur
20.1 As a result, the position which emerges is as follows.
20.2 The learned Single Judge has returned findings on five issues,
i.e., (i) infringement, (ii) validity of the suit patent, (iii) the appropriate
FRAND rate of royalty, (iv) the number of stampers supplied by
Moser Baer to the appellants and (v) the number of DVDs replicated
by the appellants during the period of dispute.
20.3 We have to assess whether these findings justify grant of stay of
the impugned order. While doing so, we have to be mindful of the fact
that the impugned order is in the nature of a money decree which is
ordinarily not to be stayed. The circumstances in which a money
decree can be stayed, have been specifically enumerated by the
Supreme Court in para 80 of Lifestyle Equities supra.
20.4 The findings of the learned Single Judge on the aspect of
infringement, validity of the suit patent, appropriate FRAND rate of
royalty and the number of stampers supplied by Moser Baer to the
appellants cannot be said to suffer from any of the infirmities
envisioned by the Supreme Court in para 80 of Lifestyle Equities .
These, therefore, cannot constitute grounds on which a stay of the
impugned money decree can be sought.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 46 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
20.5 That, however, is not the position with the findings of the
learned Single Judge in respect of the fifth aspect, regarding the
number of DVDs which could be replicated from one stamper, and,
therefore, the number of DVDs replicated by the appellants during the
period in issue.
20.6 In the case of RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025 and RFA (OS)
(Comm) 14/2025, the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a
presumption that 10,000 DVDs could be replicated from one stamper.
No basis for this figure is forthcoming on the record. The figure is,
therefore, entirely presumptuous in nature. It is well settled that
damages cannot be fastened on a litigant on the basis of mere
presumption.
20.7 Similar is the situation with respect to the appellants in
RFA(OS)(Comm) 13/2025. In that case, too, the learned Single Judge,
though he has not proceeded on the basis of the number of DVDs
which could be replicated from one stamper, has presumed a
production, by the appellants, of 65,00,000 DVDs during the period of
dispute, without any supportive material.
20.8 The presumptions, of the learned Single Judge, that 10,000
DVDs could be replicated from one stamper and that, in the case of
RFA(OS)(Comm) 13/2025, 65,00,000 DVDs had been replicated
during the period in issue, being completely without foundation,
prima facie attract para 80 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Lifestyle Equities .
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 47 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
20.9 In these circumstances, we are convinced that the appellants
cannot be directed, under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, to deposit the
entire decretal amount.
20.10 At the same time, as we are not inclined, at this stage, to disturb
the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding infringement, or
validity of the suit patent, it would not be equitable to grant a blanket
stay to the appellants.
Conclusion
21. Keeping in the view the aforesaid facts, we dispense with the
requirement of deposit per se , by the appellants, of the decretal
amount.
22. However, we direct the appellants to, in each case, furnish an
unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee, with auto-renewal
facility, drawn on a Nationalized Bank, covering the principal amount
of damages awarded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment and decree, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
uploading of this judgment on the website of this Court.
23. On the said amount being deposited, there shall be a stay of
execution of the impugned judgment and decree till further orders.
24. Needless to say, the deposit is subject to the outcome of the
present appeals and shall abide by further orders to be passed thereon.
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 48 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18
25. CM Appl 25908/2025, 31118/2025 and 31125/2025 stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025, RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2025,
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 and RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2025
26. The appeals be listed for further hearing on 15 January 2026.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JANUARY 5, 2026
AKY/YG/AR
RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters Page 49 of 49
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:05.01.2026
14:51:18