The Delhi High Court has declined to stop Xiaomi Technology India from offering its “Find Device” functionality, holding that the feature does not, at the interim stage, appear to infringe the patent relied upon by Conqueror Innovations Private Limited.
A Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed an appeal brought by Conqueror Innovations and the inventor of the patented “Communication Device Finder System”. The appeal arose from a July 2025 order of a single judge, who had refused to grant interim protection against Xiaomi.
The Bench agreed that the patent holders had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement.
The dispute concerns technology developed to help owners locate and recover stolen mobile devices. According to the patent holders, the invention originated after the inventor lost 152 mobile phones during a burglary in 2004. They subsequently claimed that Xiaomi’s “Find Device” technology, used across its smartphones, tablets, laptops and other products, incorporated key elements of their patented system.
The High Court, however, found that the two technologies differed in an important respect.
Under the patented system, an authorised owner could continue monitoring and controlling a stolen device even after efforts were made to disable its security mechanisms. A particularly significant feature was an “auto-answer mode”, which could silently answer an incoming call without notifying the person in possession of the phone.
That functionality, the Court noted, could enable the owner or an investigator to listen to the surroundings of the stolen device.
Xiaomi’s system works differently. Its “Find Device” feature permits users to remotely make the device ring, lock it or erase stored personal information. It does not incorporate the silent call-answering mechanism described in the patent. The feature can also cease to function once the device has undergone a factory reset.
The Bench considered this difference significant rather than incidental.
The patent holders had argued that “auto-answer mode” should be interpreted broadly as merely permitting remote activation. The Court rejected that reading, pointing out that their own pleadings had described the feature as silently answering calls without the knowledge of the thief or unauthorised user.
Consequently, the single judge had not introduced an additional limitation into the patent while assessing the alleged infringement.
The Court also agreed that Xiaomi’s technology lacked another feature claimed to be fundamental to the patented invention, concerning non-erasable storage and the subsequent reinstallation of data.
There was a further obstacle for the patent holders: delay.
Xiaomi informed the Court that it had been selling its devices in India since 2014, whereas the infringement proceedings were instituted only in 2023. The Bench noted that records before the Patent Office indicated that the patent holder was aware as early as 2015 of allegations involving mobile manufacturers using comparable technology.
The Court held that the prolonged delay of nearly nine years weakened the claim for urgent interim intervention.
The approaching expiry of the patent also weighed against granting an injunction. The patent is set to expire on October 17, meaning that any restraint imposed at this stage would remain in force only for a limited period.
In view of the absence of a prima facie infringement case, the delay in approaching the Court and the imminent expiry of the patent, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal seeking interim relief.
The patent holders had sought protection against Xiaomi’s continued use of the disputed technology.
