This patent trial in India took just 3 months - A model for all commercial cases

Three months. That’s how long the entire trial took in a patent dispute before the Delhi High Court.

The Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG & Ors. (CS(COMM) 653/2019), judgment from the Delhi High Court sets the benchmark on how courts can leverage summary provisions to prevent the usual process delays in deciding complex commercial disputes - especially patent disputes. While the intellectual property lawyers discuss this case law for introducing the “Dartboard Model” while considering prior arts to analyse the inventive step, the significance of this case is beyond the IP regime and is highly relevant for commercial matters in general.

The Court did not devise any new procedures or models for this matter. By merely using the existing rules, the single bench showed how the customary delay plaguing the system can be removed by appealing to the fairness of the parties and enforcing fair principles in not just the adjudication, but also the process of adjudication. In doing so, the Court set out a textbook example on how to conduct expedited trials in commercial matters.

The infringement suit, filed by Communication Components Antenna Inc. (hereinafter as ‘CCA’) against Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter as ‘Rosenberger’) and its sister concerns, is a dispute centered on Indian Patent No. 240893, titled “Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency”, originally granted to CCA’s predecessor, TenXc Wireless Inc.. The technology relates to split-sector antennas that increase subscriber capacity in cellular networks by using asymmetrical sub-sector coverage areas. It is one of the four litigations related to the suit patent.

The suit was filed in December 2019, the counter claim was filed in July 2022. CCA alleged infringement of the suit patent in 11 products of the defendants and prayed for injunction and damages. While the defendants defended the claims alleging invalidity of the suit patent under multiple provisions. The issues that were to be decided by the Court were on: -

1. Infringement;

2. Revocation;

3. Damages;

4. Injunction; and

5. Reliefs

This case sets a model procedure not only for IP litigation but for all commercial litigations - merely by strictly enforcing the existing provisions and rules. The steps adopted by the Court, taking consent from the parties to expedite the trial, are listed below:

1. Adoption of summary adjudication as per Rule 16 of the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022.

2. Faster setting up of confidentiality club.

3. Leading evidence of only 1 technical and 1 non-technical witness per side.

4. All evidence affidavits were filed and exchanged between parties.

5. All documents relied on were exhibited and marked before the Joint Registrar (JR).

6. The examination-in-chief was conducted before JR - virtually.

7. Cross examination before the Court was done with software-assisted live transcription (by Opus 2 Singapore PTE Ltd), by engaging a private agency, whose costs were borne equally by parties.

8. Witnesses of each side were cross-examined on a single day with a time limit of 1.5 hours for each witness.

9. In cross examination necessity for giving suggestions was dispensed with and was conducted only on the core evidence being tendered by the witnesses.

10. Audio recordings of testimony were stored on pen drives and retained as part of records.

11. For convenience, the trial bundles of pleadings, documents, etc. were prepared by parties in consultations with each other.

The above steps enabled completion of the trial within a period of 3 months, between framing of issues in July 2023 and the conclusion of evidence in September 2023.

While dealing with prior art in the analysis of the inventive step, the Court introduced the term “Dartboard Model” to indicate a practice adopted by Defendants which ought not to be permitted by the Courts. The Court explains the “Dartboard Model” as follows:

1. At the centre of the dartboard is the suit patent.

2. The prior arts are the darts being slung by the defendants with the fervent hope that one would hit the ‘Bulls-Eye’.

3. The Court held that these attempts to reverse-engineer a case for obviousness with hindsight bias and randomly citing prior arts, without showing linkage with the suit patent, are impermissible as it adversely affects the plaintiff who needs to address all these random documents at the expense of his resources.

4. The Court rightly observed that this “Dartboard” approach of defendants ought to be dealt with imposition of heavy costs.

The Court was faced with an unique situation wherein the impugned products, being customised antennas, were not available for testing and comparison with the patent. CCA relied on beam patterns available on the defendants' own brochures, which were admitted documents, compared the same with simulated beam patterns according to suit patent, and displayed that those were similar.

While the defendants’ conduct was rather suspicious and was aimed at making it difficult for CCA to prove infringement. Not only did they take down a few of their brochures with beam patterns during the proceeding, they also failed to present any of their products or beam patterns before the Court. Defendants merely challenged the CCA’s simulation without producing any of their own beam patterns. Further, the Gillette defence adopted by defendants did not succeed factually.

The Court observed that the defendants had withheld their best evidence while CCA had produced their best evidence. In such a situation, the Court observed that CCA discharged its initial onus while defendants failed to disprove the same. Therefore, the Court arrived at conclusion that CCA sufficiently proved the infringement.

The Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants and also granted damages worth INR 152 crores with 7% interest in case not paid within the prescribed time. The damages were computed using a license fee or royalty rates perusing the third party license. The Court observed that defendants ought not to be treated as a bonafide licensee and imposed a higher percentage as royalty on sales. Further, considering the conduct of defendants, the Court also awarded the entire actual costs in favour of CCA. Again, this was another classic example of how to enforce an existing provision to meet ends of justice. Further, a Certificate of validity granted for suit patent as it was found to be valid.

This decision is a significant one as it paves way for an efficient and expeditious procedure to resolve the disputes. This decision provides a patent holder with an effective and efficient procedure for enforcing their intellectual property rights  with provisions to penalise procedural misconduct through realistic cost awards.

But it has to be remembered that adoption of the same is more dependent on the parties being fair and reasonable and most importantly, on  the counsels as well. The Advocates must show the willingness to adopt the efficient process and be ready for this fast paced schedule unlike the usual dilatory slow schedule. This decision ensures that disputes are resolved effectively and in a timely manner.

About the author: Sarath J. Prakash is a Senior Associate at Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.