Synopsis

The suit was filed by Communication Components Antenna Inc. (the Plaintiff) alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 240893 (IN’893) titled “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency” against the Rosenberger group of companies (the Defendants). The patent relates to a split‑sector antenna that uses at least one asymmetrical beam to increase subscriber capacity while maintaining the critical coverage area of the replaced sector antenna. After a summary trial conducted under Rule 16 of the Delhi High Court Patent Rules (owing to the remaining term of the patent being less than five years), the court upheld the validity of the patent, found the Defendants’ antenna models infringing, and awarded damages of ₹152.32 crores (approximately US$ 18 million) based on a 20% royalty on the Defendants’ sales. The court also granted a permanent injunction and a certificate of validity under Section 113 of the Patents Act.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Date: March 30, 2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:2665 (as per internal reference)
Core Law: Patents Act, 1970; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022

2. Legal Framework

• Patents Act, 1970: Sections 2(1)(j) (inventive step), 2(1)(l) (new invention), 10 (specification), 13 (search for anticipation), 25(1)(e)–(k) (grounds for pre‑grant opposition), 64(1)(e)–(k) (grounds for revocation), 108 (reliefs in suits for infringement), 113 (certificate of validity).

• Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 & High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022: Rule 16 – summary adjudication where remaining patent term is five years or less; Rule 14 – preservation of audio recordings; Rule 20 – factors for computing damages.

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Applicable to commercial disputes including patent infringement suits.

• Relevant Precedents:
  Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries (1978) – construction of specification and claims.
  F Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla (Delhi High Court, 2015) – test for obviousness.
  Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. (2016) – relevance of prior use in passing off; distinguished in the context of registration.
  Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. HFCL Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – mosaicing of prior art.
  Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. v. Vimla Pannalal (1988) – valuation in suits for accounts/damages.
  Uflex Lt

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.