Every smartphone sold today runs on technology built to industry-wide standards. The patents that are so fundamental to these standards that every compliant device must use them are called Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”). In exchange for having their technology included in a standard, SEP holders commit to licensing those patents on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. When an implementer uses those patents for years and refuses to sign a license, the SEP holder’s only recourse is to go to court.<\/p>\n
Malikie Innovations Ltd. (“Malikie”) acquired approximately 32,000 patents from BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) in May 2023. BlackBerry was a pioneer in cellular technology, and its portfolio had previously been licensed to Samsung, Apple, LG, and Huawei. Through a Patent License Agreement (“PLA”) signed in January 2024, Malikie also obtained the exclusive right to sub-license BlackBerry’s remaining cellular SEPs to specific named companies, including the Xiaomi group. Three Indian patents form the core of this suit: IN 283303, IN 317530, and IN 335982, covering technologies related to signal acknowledgement, device reception, and call establishment in 4G and 5G networks.<\/p>\n
Xiaomi Corporation (“Xiaomi”), together with its Indian and Chinese subsidiaries, holds 17.76% of India’s mobile handset market. Malikie first approached Xiaomi in October 2023. Over two years followed: two FRAND offers from Malikie, two counteroffers from Xiaomi, and a Non-Disclosure Agreement renewed multiple times \u2014 but no signed license. Malikie filed suit before the Delhi High Court and applied for pro tem<\/em> security, a temporary court-ordered deposit designed to protect the SEP holder’s interests while the full case proceeds. Just before the order was delivered, a significant new development emerged: on 2 March 2026, Xiaomi filed a FRAND rate-setting suit before the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in China. That filing proved consequential.<\/p>\n The court began from a well-established baseline: a pro tem<\/em> order is not an injunction. It does not stop the defendant from manufacturing or selling products. Its purpose is narrower, which is to ensure that the SEP holder can recover royalties if the suit eventually succeeds, and to prevent the implementer from gaining an unfair competitive advantage over other players who are already paying. The Division Bench in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson<\/em> (2023:DHC:4465-DB) had firmly established that FRAND obligations are mutual: neither an implementer nor an SEP holder operates in a “one-way street.” An implementer who neither accepts a FRAND offer nor provides a counteroffer with security gains a market advantage at the expense of both the SEP holder and other willing licensees. The court confirmed that the threshold for a pro tem<\/em> order is therefore lower than for an interim injunction, and that a detailed exploration of merits is not required.<\/p>\n On the BlackBerry non-joinder argument, the court held that Section 109 of the Patents Act requires the patentee to be joined only when an exclusive licensee, not the patent owner itself, files the suit. Since Malikie owned the Suit Patents by assignment, no such requirement applied. The objection was therefore rejected.<\/p>\n On PLAs, the court followed the Division Bench rulings in Nokia Technologies OY<\/em> (supra) and Dolby International AB v. Lava International Limited<\/em> (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5426) and observed that the production of comparable PLAs is irrelevant at the pro tem<\/em> stage because the court is not determining the FRAND rate. Xiaomi, which held licenses from Nokia, Qualcomm, Huawei, and Interdigital, had access to benchmarks from which it could assess whether Malikie’s offer was FRAND. It could not simultaneously refuse to engage and demand third-party agreements as a precondition for any security.<\/p>\n On essentiality, Malikie had made ETSI declarations and filed claim charts. But the decisive factor was the Chinese Civil Suit. On 2 March 2026, Xiaomi’s subsidiary asked the Shenzhen Court to confirm Malikie’s obligation to license its SEPs and to set a FRAND rate for devices sold in China. Xiaomi argued this was limited to Chinese patents only and had no bearing on Indian proceedings.<\/p>\n The court rejected that distinction. Following Nokia Technologies OY<\/em> (supra), which had treated OPPO’s FRAND filing in China as a prima facie admission that Nokia owned valid SEPs requiring a license, the court held that asking any court to set a FRAND rate presupposes the patents in question are essential and that royalties are payable. Whether the action was for the full global portfolio or a subset, the admission carried the same logical force. Since Malikie’s portfolio had counterpart patents in both India and China, the Shenzhen filing supported prima facie essentiality for the Indian Suit Patents as well. Essentiality was accordingly established.<\/p>\n Xiaomi’s own websites declared 4G and 5G compliance across its Xiaomi, Redmi, and POCO device series. Malikie filed test reports showing the devices implemented the features claimed in the Suit Patents. Rule 3(B)(vi) of the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022 requires a defendant raising a non-infringement defence to disclose the alternative technology it uses. Xiaomi disclosed nothing. Following Dolby International AB<\/em> (supra), the court held that the burden to prove use of an alternative technology lies with the implementer<\/strong><\/span>. That burden went undischarged. Prima facie infringement was made out.<\/p>\n Three of the four Xiaomi defendants had no assets in India, and the Indian subsidiary faced \u20b95,551.27 crores in seizures under FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act)<\/span><\/strong>. The court found a genuine risk that any final decree could become unenforceable. For the quantum, the court took the arithmetic mean of Malikie’s second lump-sum offer and Xiaomi’s second counteroffer, then applied Xiaomi’s India market share of 19.12%, arriving at $28.7 million, approximately \u20b9272 crores at the exchange rate prevailing on 30 April 2026.<\/p>\n In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:<\/p>\nIssues for the Court<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Malikie’s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Xiaomi’s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Court’s Analysis<\/h2>\n
What is pro-tem security?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Maintainability and Patent License Agreements<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Xiaomi’s Shenzhen Filing was a Self-Inflicted Admission<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Burden of infringement on Xiaomi<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Quantum: A Formula from the Negotiations<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Findings<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n