INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Deepankar Mishra and Mehr Bajaj, Sim and San, Attorneys at Law
In another patent infringement dispute – Communica- tion Components Antenna Inc . v Mobi Antenna Tech- nologies ( Shenzhen ) Co . Ltd . & Ors . (2024:DHC:3975) – the Delhi High Court granted damages amounting to approximately USD26 million. Indian courts have also not hesitated in granting sub- stantial monetary reliefs in SEP disputes, including damages, as seen in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ( Publ ) v Lava International Ltd . (2024:DHC:2698), and also directing pro-tem deposits and interim monetary arrangements, as in Dolby International AB & Anr . v Lava International Limited (2025:DHC:5426). The importance of these decisions extends beyond their headline numbers. Indian courts are increasingly engaging with commercially sophisticated concepts such as royalty frameworks, loss-of-profit methodolo- gies, infringer profits, licensing benchmarks, price ero- sion, market dilution and duration-specific economic harm. Expert economic evidence, confidentiality clubs and sealed commercial records are becoming increas- ingly common in large-scale disputes. This reflects a broader institutional evolution. Indian IP litigation is gradually moving toward commercially mature damages jurisprudence capable of reflecting the realities of technology-driven markets. Equally significant is the manner in which Indian courts are now structuring monetary relief during the pendency of litigation, rather than reserving it for final adjudication alone. In a landmark decision in Commu- nication Components Antenna Inc . v Ace Technolo- gies Corp . & Ors . (2025:DHC:5107), the Delhi High Court directed a South Korean defendant to deposit approximately USD35 million in court, represent- ing nearly one quarter of the amount claimed by the plaintiff in evidence. This was the first case in which a deposit of money was ordered prior to the final adju- dication on liability and quantum. The willingness to direct pre-trial deposits and interim security arrange- ments in non-SEP patent litigation signals a recog- nition that prolonged proceedings should not allow an infringer to retain the commercial benefit of con- tinuing infringement in the interim. For rights holders, this materially alters litigation economics, since the financial consequences of infringement may begin to
crystallise long before a final decree. For defendants, it introduces a powerful incentive to engage with the merits early rather than relying on procedural delay as a commercial strategy. The practical consequences for global businesses are considerable. Damages exposure of this magnitude changes how infringement risk is assessed at board level, how settlement negotiations are conducted and how enforcement budgets are allocated across juris- dictions. India can no longer be treated as a forum where adverse findings carry largely symbolic financial weight. For brand owners and patentees, the prospect of meaningful recovery makes Indian litigation a more attractive enforcement venue; for potential infringers, it makes early commercial resolution a more rational course than protracted contest. Pharmaceutical litigation continues to reflect India’s balancing philosophy No area better illustrates India’s distinct approach to intellectual property than pharmaceuticals. India remains simultaneously one of the world’s largest sup- pliers of affordable generic medicines and an increas- ingly important market for pharmaceutical innovation and patent enforcement. That dual identity creates constant legal and policy tension. When high-value pharmaceutical therapies lose exclu- sivity protection or generic competition intensifies, medicines that were once financially inaccessible can suddenly become dramatically cheaper for large sec- tions of consumers. These developments frequently reignite broader debates surrounding evergreening, patent duration, therapeutic efficacy, affordability and healthcare access. The recent disputes involving the Semaglutide and Risdiplam patents have illustrated how Indian courts are increasingly approaching pharmaceutical IP dis- putes through a careful balancing of patent protection, public health considerations and access to life-saving therapies. • In Novo Nordisk A / S v Dr . Reddy ’ s Laboratories Ltd . & Anr . (2025:DHC:10820), the Delhi High Court declined to grant interim injunctive relief in rela- tion to Semaglutide, while permitting manufacture/
132 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook