Interim injunction requires prima facie proof that all essential patent claim elements are present.

The Appellants challenged the judgment dated 4 July 2025 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed their applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit concerning Indian Patent No. 244963, titled “A Communication Device Finder System”.

The suit patent concerned a communication-device finder system incorporating a non-erasable security activation element, auto-reinstallation of relevant data, remote activation, location tracking, data erasure, and a silent “auto-answer mode”.

The Appellants alleged that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” functionality, available in its smartphones, tablets, laptops and notebooks, infringed the patent.

The Single Judge held that Xiaomi’s devices did not prima facie contain the essential features of Elements E2 and E3 of Independent Claim 1, particularly the non-erasable message-centre data, auto-reinstallation mechanism, and silent automatic answering of incoming calls.

The Single Judge also relied on the patent’s limited working, the Appellants’ approximately nine-year delay in instituting proceedings, and the resulting balance of convenience in Xiaomi’s favour.

The Court applied the appellate-interference principle in Wander Ltd. v. Antox (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, under which an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the court below unless the discretion was arbitrary, capricious, perverse or based on disregard of settled principles.

This principle was reaffirmed through Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, and Sanjay Gupta and Vinay Gupta v. Vineet Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1862.

For interim patent relief, the Court applied the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, including the principle in Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., 2026:DHC:1911-DB, that where a patent is close to expiry and the defendant has long marketed the product, interim relief may be refused even apart from the merits.

On infringement, the Court applied the rule that all essential elements of an independent patent claim must be prima facie present in the allegedly infringing product; failure to establish infringement of the independent claim also defeats reliance on dependent claims.

Claim terms were construed in the context of the complete specification and the patentee’s own pleadings, while avoiding an interpretation that would render the claim vulnerable for lack of novelty.

The Court held that the Single Judge had adopted a legally permissible construction of Elements E2 and E3 and that no appellate error was shown.

Under Element E2, the relevant security-activation data—including the message-centre number—had to remain non-erasable through flash memory with auto-reinstallation or through ROM.

The Appellants’ plaint and expert opinion themselves treated such data as necessary for continued communication with and recovery of the stolen device; they could not adopt, on appeal, the narrower position that ROM storage alone was sufficient without the message-centre number.

Xiaomi’s “Find Device” functionality did not provide the claimed auto-reinstallation mechanism or non-erasable message-centre data, and the Appellants did not explain how the patented system could operate without that data after removal of the SIM.

As to Element E3, the Court found that “auto-answer mode” could not be equated with mere remote activation.

The Appellants’ own plaint described the feature as silently and automatically answering incoming calls so that the authorised caller could hear the surroundings of the stolen device without the unauthorised user’s knowledge.

Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature could play a sound, lock the device or erase data, but could not silently answer incoming calls.

Treating “auto-answer mode” as merely remote activation would also risk rendering the claim non-novel because remote activation was already disclosed in the prior art.

The Court further held that the prolonged delay was independently fatal to interim relief.

The Appellants had waited approximately nine years despite Xiaomi’s admitted sales since 2014, and the patent had less than two months of life remaining when judgment was reserved.

The balance of convenience therefore favoured Xiaomi, while the Appellants could pursue damages and the directed maintenance of accounts.

Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature did not prima facie satisfy Element E2 because it lacked the claimed non-erasable/reinstallable data mechanism, including the message-centre number, and did not satisfy Element E3 because it lacked silent automatic answering of incoming calls.

The Appellants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, and the balance of convenience independently favoured refusal of an injunction due to the substantial delay, Xiaomi’s long-standing sales and the imminent expiry of the patent.

The appeal was dismissed, the impugned judgment was upheld, and pending applications were also dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not bind the Single Judge at trial.