Summary
Patent Expired. Damages Pending. Game Still On for Philips. Despite the expiry of the suit patent, Philips retains an enforceable monetary decree in its favor. The Court refused to stay execution, signaling the continued legal significance of infringement findings post-expiry.
Introduction
This post is based on the order dated 5 January 2026 passed by the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeals (RFA) arising from a judgment dated 20 February 2025. The appeals were filed by Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl and others, who were defendants in the original patent infringement suits. Koninklijke Philips N.V., which had instituted the infringement suits, appears as the respondent in the present proceedings. The order adjudicates applications filed in the appeals seeking stay of execution of monetary decrees.
Background
By judgment dated 20 February 2025, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court disposed of patent infringement suits instituted by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against the appellants in the present appeals. The suits alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 218255, of which Philips was the proprietor. The patent relates to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”. In the suits, Philips sought permanent injunction restraining infringement of the patent, along with damages and costs.
During the pendency of the suits, the suit patent expired by efflux of time. As a consequence, the reliefs seeking permanent injunction were rendered infructuous. The adjudication before the Single Judge thereafter remained only with respect to claims for damages and costs.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge decreed the suits in favour of Philips and awarded substantial damages with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, along with additional damages, against the defendants. The findings were based primarily on infringement of Claim 12 of the patent, which relates to a record carrier containing the modulated signal generated using the patented method. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeals before the Division Bench and thereby became the appellants in the present proceedings.
Issues:
Whether execution of the monetary decrees passed by the learned Single Judge should be stayed during the pendency of the appeals.
Nature of the present proceedings
Along with the appeals, the appellants filed applications under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of execution of the money decrees passed in favour of Philips. The present order decides only these stay applications. The Court records that issues relating to infringement of the patent and its validity are matters to be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeals and are not examined in this order.
Legal Analysis
While examining the stay applications, the Court placed reliance on Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153. The Court noted that execution of money decrees is ordinarily not stayed in appeal and that such relief is granted only in exceptional circumstances. The principles discussed in Lifestyle Equities, after considering earlier Supreme Court decisions including Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co., Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., and Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Ltd., were applied to the facts of the present case.
Decision
Applying the above standard, the Court found that the judgment under challenge did not disclose circumstances warranting stay of execution of a money decree. The issues raised by the appellants were left open for consideration in the appeals. The applications seeking stay of execution were accordingly rejected.
Citation: RFA(OS)(Comm) 8/2025 and connected matters