The Delhi High Court on September 7, 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by Conqueror Innovations Private Limited seeking to restrain Xiaomi Technology India from using its ‘Find Device’ feature in mobile phones, tablets, laptops and other devices.
The appeal challenged a July 2025 order of a single-judge bench which had refused interim relief to the appellants on the ground that they had failed to establish a prima facie case of patent infringement.
A Division Bench comprising Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the single-judge’s finding that Xiaomi’s system did not contain the essential features of the patented technology.
‘We therefore uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge that the Appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement of the suit patent,’ the Court stated in its order.
The appellants’ patent, titled ‘Communication Device Finder System’, was conceived after the inventor reported losing 152 mobile phones in a burglary in 2004. The technology was designed to enable an authorised owner to locate, monitor and remotely control a stolen device even after attempts to disable its security features.
A key element of the patented system is an ‘auto-answer mode’ that allows the device to silently answer incoming calls without alerting the person in possession of the phone, thereby enabling the owner or investigator to listen to surrounding conversations.
The Court noted that Xiaomi’s Find Device feature permits users to play a sound, remotely lock the device and erase personal data, but does not include the silent auto-answer functionality.
Further, the feature becomes inoperable if the device is restored to factory settings, unlike the patented system which is designed to remain functional despite such attempts.
The Bench held that mere similarity in allowing remote control of a lost device is insufficient to establish infringement, emphasizing that the auto-answer mode constitutes an essential element of the invention.
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that auto-answer mode should be equated with remote activation, observing that the appellants themselves had described the feature in their pleadings as one that answers calls silently without the knowledge of an unauthorised user.
It added that the single-judge had not read any new limitation into the patent by requiring this specific functionality.
The Court also upheld the finding that Xiaomi’s feature lacks another essential element relating to non-erasable storage and reinstallation of data after a factory reset.
Xiaomi submitted that it had been selling devices in India since 2014, while the suit was filed only in 2023. The Court noted that Patent Office records indicated the patentee was aware by 2015 of mobile manufacturers allegedly using similar technology.
The nearly nine-year delay in filing the suit demonstrated a lack of urgency and was, by itself, sufficient to deny interim relief.
Additionally, the Bench observed that the patent is due to expire on October 17, 2026, meaning any injunction would have effect only for a brief period.
On these grounds, the Court dismissed the appeal seeking interim relief.
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate CM Lall along with advocates Rahul Chaudhry, Nikhil Sharma, Sidharth Sharma and Divesh Vashist.
Xiaomi was represented by advocates L Badri Narayanan, Prashant Phillips, Vindhya S Mani, Pallasash Shankhdhar, Kartikay Singha, Ardra Goodwin and Khushi Lokwani.