Absence of Plaint Amendment Does Not Warrant Absolute Stay Where Evidentiary Findings Support Grant of Damages at FRAND Rates

The respondent (Philips) sued the appellants for infringing Indian Patent IN 218255, a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) regarding "EFM+ coding" technology for DVDs

After the patent expired, the suits survived only for damages

On 20 February 2025, a Single Judge awarded substantial damages based on an estimated production of 10,000 DVDs per stamper

On 5 January 2026, the Division Bench granted a partial stay of execution conditioned upon the appellants furnishing unconditional bank guarantees for the principal decretal amount

The appellants filed these Review Petitions seeking an absolute stay without any deposit or guarantee

The court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding the narrow scope of review, which requires an "error apparent on the face of record"

It further applied Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, noting that the ordinary norm for staying a money decree is the deposit of the decretal amount

The court distinguished *Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc (2025)*, which allows for a waiver of deposit only in "extraordinary" cases where the judgment is prima facie palpably unsustainable or involves non-service of parties

It also considered *Ramnik Madhvani v. Taraben Madhvani (2004)* regarding the impermissibility of awarding reliefs not claimed in the pleadings

The court reasoned that a review of a discretionary order is only permissible if the exercise of discretion was "palpably impermissible in law"

While the appellants argued that the damages awarded exceeded the ₹50 lakhs claimed in the plaint, the court observed that the Single Judge's findings on infringement and the FRAND royalty rate of US $0.03 were not prima facie challenged or discredited

Unlike *Lifestyle Equities*, the appellants here participated in the trial and were found to be non-forthcoming regarding production data

The court found that although the "10,000 DVDs per stamper" estimate was speculative (which is why only a bank guarantee for the principal was ordered rather than a full deposit), the overall circumstances did not warrant an unconditional stay

The court refused to grant an absolute stay without security but, in the interest of equity, extended the time to furnish the bank guarantees by two weeks

Failure to furnish the guarantees within this period will result in the automatic dismissal of the stay applications