Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG & Ors. (CS(COMM) 653/2019 & CC(COMM) 22/2022) was decided by the Delhi High Court on 30 March 2026 by Justice Prathiba M. Singh. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 relating to “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency” used in cellular base station antennas. The Defendants challenged the patent’s validity through a counterclaim on grounds including lack of novelty, inventive step, and insufficiency, while the Plaintiff sought injunction and damages. The Court dismissed the revocation counterclaim, upheld the validity of the patent, and issued a certificate of validity under Section 113 of the Patents Act, 1970. On merits, the Court found that the Defendants’ antenna models infringed key patent claims by emitting asymmetrical beams within the patented scope. Taking note of the Defendants’ evasive conduct and incomplete disclosure of technical and sales data, the Court decreed a permanent injunction restraining further infringement and awarded damages of ?152.32 crore for past sales, along with additional damages at 20% of undisclosed sales and costs.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Plaintiff, M/s. Communication Components Antenna Inc., a Canadian company and successor-in-interest to M/s. TenXc Wireless Inc., instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 titled “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency”, along with damages and rendition of accounts. The suit patent, granted in 2010 and valid until 19 March 2027, pertains to technology used in cellular base station antennas for achieving optimal spectrum efficiency through asymmetrical beam patterns.

The Defendants, namely Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG (Germany), its Indian entity Prose Technologies India Private Limited, Rosenberger Asia Pacific Electronic Co. Ltd. (China), and Prose Technologies (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. (China), are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and supply of antennas to telecom service providers in India. The Plaintiff alleged that several antenna models manufactured and sold by the Defendants infringed the suit patent by emitting asymmetrical beams covered within the scope of the patent claims.

In response, the Defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the suit patent on multiple grounds, including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficiency of the complete specification, false representation before the Patent Office, and non-patentability. The Defendants further relied on prior art and disclosures in foreign jurisdictions to challenge the validity of the patent. The matter proceeded on a fast-track basis, with summary adjudication, limited witnesses, and live transcription of cross-examination, culminating in completion of trial within three months from the framing of issues.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary issues before the Court were whether the suit patent IN’893 (Indian Patent No. 240893) was liable to be revoked on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, insufficiency, false representation, and non-patentability; whether the Defendants had infringed the suit patent; and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction along with damages or rendition of accounts.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Delhi High Court held that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of establishing any valid ground for revocation of the suit patent. Consequently, the counterclaim seeking revocation was dismissed, and the Court directed issuance of a certificate of validity in respect of IN’240893 under Section 113 of the Patents Act, 1970.

On the issue of infringement, the Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully demonstrated that the Defendants’ antenna models infringed the suit patent. The Court observed that multiple antenna models manufactured and sold by the Defendants emitted asymmetrical beams that fell squarely within the scope of Claim Nos. 1, 10, 12, and 13 of the patent, thereby constituting infringement.

With respect to relief, the Court noted the conduct of the Defendants, particularly their failure to produce relevant technical material such as antennas, beam patterns, and complete sales data, and described such conduct as evasive. The Court found this to be a relevant factor while determining relief and quantification of damages.

ORDER OF THE COURT

The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their manufacturers, dealers, retailers, subsidiaries, and associated entities from selling, offering for sale, or promoting any antenna infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, including the specific models identified during trial.

The Court further awarded damages amounting to Rs. 152,32,36,783.90/- in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of past sales disclosed before the Court, directing payment on or before 30 June 2026, failing which simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum would be payable from 1 July 2026. The Court also directed that additional damages be computed at 20% of the sales figures yet to be disclosed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff was awarded actual costs as determined by the Taxation Officer, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

ACCESS THE OFFICIAL JUDGMENTS/ORDER HERE:

Case Name

Communication Components Antenna Inc. v. Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik GmbH & Co. KG & Ors.

Neutral Citation

CS(COMM) 653/2019 and CC(COMM) 22/2022

Date

30 March 2026

Bench

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, High Court of Delhi