Deliberate beam asymmetry is patentable; infringement proven via simulations justifies substantial royalty-based compensatory damages.

The Plaintiff, a Canadian telecommunications company, is the registered proprietor of Indian Patent No. 240893 (IN’893), titled “Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency”

The patent relates to split-sector antennas that utilize asymmetrical beam patterns to increase subscriber capacity while maintaining the same "critical coverage area" as the original sector antenna, thereby reducing handover zones and avoiding the need for network redesign

The Defendants, part of the Rosenberger Group, manufacture and sell multi-beam antennas in India

The Plaintiff alleged that 11 of the Defendants' antenna models infringed IN’893 by employing the patented asymmetrical beam technology

The Defendants filed a counter-claim for the revocation of the patent, citing lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and insufficiency of disclosure

Due to the patent’s remaining term being less than five years, the Court adopted summary adjudication under Rule 16 of the DHC Patent Rules

1. Whether the suit patent IN’893 is liable to be revoked on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, or insufficiency of disclosure?

2. Whether the Defendants’ antenna models infringe the claims of IN’893?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages/rendition of accounts?

The Court applied Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, regarding the grounds for revocation

For novelty/anticipation, it relied on the principle that prior art must disclose the subject matter such that its performance necessarily results in infringement (Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Glenmark)

For inventive step, it applied the five-step inquiry from F Hoffman La Roche v. Cipla

Regarding claim construction, it followed Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries, holding that claims and specifications must be construed together

For damages, the Court applied the "Reasonable Royalty" principle under Section 108 of the Patents Act and Rule 20 of the DHC IPD Rules

Finally, it applied DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators to determine that the date of the decree is the relevant date for foreign currency conversion

The Court rejected the challenge to the patent's validity. Regarding novelty, the cited prior arts (e.g., Gabriel, TenXc Article) were found not to anticipate the invention as they did not teach the specific combination of split-sectoring with asymmetrical beams to maintain "critical coverage area"

On inventive step, the Court criticized the "Dartboard Model" of citing numerous unrelated documents without establishing a "common thread" or motivation to combine them

Insufficiency was rejected because "critical coverage area," though not explicitly defined, was a concept a person skilled in the art (POSA) could derive from the specification

On infringement, the Court accepted the Plaintiff's expert testimony, which used MATLAB simulations to overlay the patent's beam patterns onto the Defendants’ product brochures, showing near identity

The Court drew an adverse inference against the Defendants for failing to produce their physical antennas or their own beam pattern data, despite being the best evidence

The Defendants' "Gillette defense"—claiming they used the old "Butler Matrix" design—was disproved as their expert admitted their antennas were actually based on other matrices not providing the same results

The counter-claim for revocation was dismissed

The Court granted a permanent injunction against the Defendants regarding the 11 infringing models

Damages were awarded based on a "Reasonable Royalty" of 20% of sales, totaling ₹152,32,36,783.90/- (including conversion of USD-denominated sales)

The Defendants were directed to pay this amount by 30th June 2026, with 7% simple interest applicable thereafter

The Court also awarded actual costs to the Plaintiff and issued a Certificate of Validity for the patent under Section 113