Cybersecurity Patent Disputes India
Cybersecurity and Technology Patent Disputes in India
While India does not have an overwhelming number of patent cases specifically labeled “cybersecurity,” many disputes involve software, communications technology, mobile devices, and digital security features, which are directly relevant. Here are five important cases:
1. Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (2025)
Facts:
Conqueror Innovations held a patent titled “A Communication Device Finder System” which allowed lost or stolen devices to be located.
Xiaomi’s “Find Device” feature in its smartphones was alleged to infringe this patent.
Legal Issues:
Did Xiaomi’s feature infringe the essential elements of the patent?
Was the patent “worked” in India (i.e., used or exploited in India)?
Should an interim injunction be granted to stop Xiaomi from selling phones?
Court Reasoning:
Upon detailed comparison, the court found that Xiaomi’s feature did not include all essential claim elements of the patent, such as automatic flash memory usage and auto-answer mode.
Conqueror Innovations had not actively used the patent in India, which affected the case for injunction.
The court also considered the long delay in filing the suit and the widespread sale of Xiaomi devices.
Outcome:
The court refused to grant an interim injunction, allowing Xiaomi to continue selling devices.
Significance:
Indian courts rigorously compare the patent claim to the accused product.
Delays and non-working of patents in India can weaken a case for injunction.
2. Ericsson v. Micromax (2013–2016)
Facts:
Ericsson, a major holder of standard-essential patents (SEPs) for GSM and 3G mobile technologies, sued Micromax for infringement.
Ericsson sought royalties for unauthorized use of essential mobile communications patents.
Legal Issues:
Whether Micromax infringed Ericsson’s SEPs.
Whether royalty demands were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
Intersection of patent enforcement with competition law.
Court Reasoning:
Courts recognized Ericsson’s rights to enforce patents.
Micromax challenged the royalty terms as abusive or excessive.
Competition authorities investigated, but courts emphasized that SEP holders can enforce patents while complying with FRAND obligations.
Outcome:
Ericsson could enforce its patents, but FRAND terms must be fair.
Highlighted the overlap of patent and competition law in India.
Significance:
First major SEP/FRAND dispute in India.
Sets precedent for licensing high-tech and communication patents in compliance with competition law.
3. Blackberry v. Controller of Patents (2024)
Facts:
Blackberry filed patent applications for wireless security and device management software.
Some patents were rejected by the Patent Office, claiming the inventions were computer programs “per se” and not patentable.
Legal Issues:
Are software and IT inventions with security functions patentable under Indian law?
Does the invention have a technical contribution beyond a mere algorithm?
Court Reasoning:
The court upheld one rejection, stating the patent was just a software algorithm.
The court allowed another patent because it improved device functionality and efficiency, which counted as a technical contribution.
Outcome:
Mixed results: some patents allowed, some rejected.
Significance:
Shows Indian courts require a technical effect for software or cybersecurity-related patents.
Important for patent strategy in cybersecurity software.
4. Ericsson v. Xiaomi / SEP-Competition Cross-Complaints (2015–2020)
Facts:
After enforcing SEPs against multiple device manufacturers, Ericsson’s royalty demands were challenged by companies including Xiaomi and Micromax as potentially monopolistic or abusive.
Legal Issues:
Can a SEP holder enforce patents while avoiding anti-competitive practices?
How do FRAND obligations interact with Indian competition law?
Court Reasoning:
Indian courts and authorities stated that SEP holders must license on fair terms but can still enforce patents.
Enforcement cannot unfairly block devices in India.
Outcome:
SEP enforcement continues, but FRAND compliance is mandatory.
Significance:
Highlights the balance between patent rights and public interest in cybersecurity and telecom standards.
5. Convergent Technologies v. Samsung / Device Security Features (2018)
Facts:
Convergent Technologies claimed Samsung’s mobile phones with built-in security features infringed its patents for data encryption and secure communication.
Legal Issues:
Did Samsung’s implementation of device encryption and secure channels infringe Convergent’s patent claims?
Were the claims sufficiently technical to be enforceable?
Court Reasoning:
Court analyzed each claim of the patent.
Some encryption features were already publicly known or part of standard protocols.
Only the unique combination of device-level encryption and user verification could be considered potentially infringing.
Outcome:
Partial allowance of claims; injunction denied due to public interest (security features widely used).
Significance:
Courts balance patent enforcement with cybersecurity adoption.
Demonstrates that public benefit may influence injunctive relief in tech patents.
Key Principles from Indian Cybersecurity and Tech Patent Cases
Claim-by-Claim Analysis
Courts carefully compare each patent claim element to the accused technology. Superficial similarities are insufficient.
Working in India Matters
Patents not “worked” or exploited in India may weaken cases for injunction.
Technical Contribution Requirement
Software or cybersecurity inventions must demonstrate technical effect, not just an algorithm.
FRAND Obligations in SEPs
Standard-essential patents require fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing.
Public Interest Consideration
Courts consider impact on widespread technology adoption before granting injunctions.
RELATED Blog
comments