Threshold for pro tem security in SEP suits requires prima facie case without detailed merit exploration.

The Plaintiffs, Malikie Innovations Ltd. (acquirers of BlackBerry’s patent portfolio), filed a suit for infringement of three Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies

Negotiations for a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) license had persisted since October 2023 without reaching an agreement

In March 2026, Defendant No. 3 filed a rate-setting suit before the Shenzhen Court in China for Chinese patents

The Plaintiffs filed the present application (I.A. 17510/2025) under Section 151 of the CPC seeking pro tem security deposit based on their licensing offer, citing the Defendants’ "hold-out" tactics and the precarious financial situation of Xiaomi’s Indian subsidiary

1. Whether the Court is empowered to grant pro tem security in SEP disputes under Section 151 of the CPC as a temporary arrangement before the determination of the interim injunction

2. Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case of validity, essentiality, and infringement for the purpose of pro tem relief

3. Whether the Defendants are liable to deposit security despite not having access to the Plaintiffs' third-party Patent License Agreements (PLAs)

The Court relied on Section 151 of the CPC to exercise inherent powers to balance equities via temporary arrangements

It applied the Standard Essential Patent (SEP) regime principles from Intex Technologies v. Ericsson, establishing that both licensors and implementers have reciprocal FRAND obligations, and implementers cannot derive an "unfair competitive edge" by using technology without payment

It followed the precedent in Nokia v. Oppo, holding that pro tem security does not require a full prima-facie adjudication on merits and that non-furnishing of third-party PLAs is irrelevant at this stage

It further observed Rule 3(B)(vi) of the Delhi High Court Patent Rules, which places the burden on defendants to disclose alternate technology used to avoid infringement

The Court determined that a pro tem order is a temporary measure distinct from an injunction and requires a lower threshold of scrutiny

On validity and essentiality, the Court found the patents prima facie valid as fundamental wireless technologies [para 55] and noted that Xiaomi's act of filing a FRAND rate-setting suit in China constituted a prima facie admission that the Plaintiffs own SEPs requiring licensing

On infringement, the Court observed Xiaomi’s own self-declarations of 4G/5G compliance on its website [para 70] and its failure to provide any evidence of alternate technology used

The Court found the Defendants' financial standing "precarious" due to ongoing ED investigations and the lack of physical assets in India for the parent/Chinese entities, necessitating security to ensure a future decree is not illusory

Regarding PLAs, the Court ruled that implementers can use their own existing licenses with other SEP holders to determine a fair counter-offer, and the patentee is not mandated to disclose confidential third-party agreements at the pro tam stage

The Court quantified the deposit at $28.7 million (approx. ₹272 crores), calculated as 19.12% (Xiaomi's Indian market share) of the mean value between the Plaintiffs’ last offer and the Defendants’ last counter-offer

The Defendants were directed to deposit ₹272 crores with the Registrar General or provide an unconditional Bank Guarantee within six weeks. Failure to comply allows the Plaintiffs to seek an immediate interim injunction