IP Case Law › Patents › Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfre…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Patents Act, 1970 (infringement and revocation counterclaim)
Brief facts
Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA) sued companies of the Rosenberger group for infringement of its Indian patent IN 240893 relating to antennas. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. Issues were framed in July 2023 and evidence was completed by September 2023.
Issues before the Court
- Whether the suit patent IN 240893 is liable to be revoked.
- Whether the defendants infringe the suit patent.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages, and in what amount.
Court's findings
The defendants failed to establish any ground for revocation of IN 240893, and their counterclaim was dismissed. The plaintiff discharged the burden of proving that the defendants' antennas infringe the suit patent. Having pressed damages rather than rendition of accounts, the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction and damages.
The judgment also records the case-management steps used (evidence before the Joint Registrar, virtual examination of foreign witnesses, live transcription, time limits on cross-examination and trial bundles), which allowed evidence to be completed in about three months.
Decision
Suit decreed. Permanent injunction against the listed antenna models and any other infringing models. Damages of Rs. 152,32,36,783.90 for sales disclosed to the Court, payable by 30 June 2026, failing which 7% simple interest runs from 1 July 2026. Sales not yet disclosed are to be disclosed within four weeks, with damages at 20% of those sales.
Key legal principle / ratio
After trial, a patentee who defeats a revocation counterclaim and proves infringement is entitled to a permanent injunction and compensatory damages, which may be calculated on the defendant's disclosed sales.
Important paragraph references
Para 354: findings on revocation, infringement and relief; paras 356-357: trial-management steps; para 362: decree. Appeal status was not checked when this note was prepared.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Antenna Damages Patent Infringement Permanent Injunction Revocation Counterclaim Trial Management
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
An order refusing a patent for lack of inventive step must contain a reasoned analysis of the prior art and of why the claimed invention would be obvious; an unreasoned order will be set aside and remanded.
Inventive StepPatent OfficePrior Art AnalysisReasoned OrderPatentsArray Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsAstraZeneca AB & Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
A patentee that has treated a later patent as coextensive in term with an earlier patent covering the same compound abroad cannot, at the interim stage, claim a longer period of protection for the later patent in India; interim re…
DapagliflozinEvergreeningGenus PatentInterim Injunction