Introduction
The case of Communication Components Antenna Inc. versus Ace Technologies Corp. and Others represents a significant judicial pronouncement by the Delhi High Court in the realm of intellectual property law, specifically patent infringement in a cross-border context. This dispute centers on allegations that Ace Technologies, a South Korean company, infringed upon the plaintiff’s Indian Patent No. 240893, which pertains to innovative antenna technology designed to enhance spectral efficiency in cellular networks. The plaintiff, a Canadian entity, sought to protect its patent rights against defendants with limited presence in India, raising complex issues of jurisdiction, enforcement, and interim relief. The case underscores the challenges of safeguarding intellectual property rights when foreign entities with minimal Indian assets are involved and highlights the strategic use of the court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to ensure justice in such scenarios.
Factual Background
Communication Components Antenna Inc., a Canadian company specializing in cellular base station products, holds Indian Patent No. 240893, titled “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency.” This patent covers a novel sector-antenna design that employs asymmetrical beam patterns to enhance subscriber capacity in cellular networks, overcoming limitations of traditional symmetrical sectorization. The plaintiff’s products, including antennas and tower-mounted amplifiers, are designed to optimize cellular base station performance.
The primary defendant, Ace Technologies Corp., is a South Korean company manufacturing and selling antennas for the telecommunication industry. Additional defendants include a Hong Kong-based entity, Shin Ah Ltd., and two Indian subsidiaries of Ace Technologies. The plaintiff alleged that Ace Technologies’ antenna models, specifically XXDW-18-33i-IVT-DB8P and XXDH-20-33ie-VT-DB, infringed its patent by replicating the asymmetrical beam technology.
The plaintiff claimed it became aware of the infringement in 2017 after comparing beam patterns of the defendants’ antennas with its own, prompted by a cellular operator’s analysis in India’s 4G/LTE network. The plaintiff further asserted that it had shared details of its patented technology with the defendants in prior communications, raising concerns about unauthorized use.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff initiated the suit, CS(COMM) 1222/2018, in the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its patent, along with damages or rendition of accounts. An interim application, I.A. 1522/2018, was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an ad interim injunction.
On July 12, 2019, a Single Judge found prima facie infringement, directing the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 40 crores for pre-suit sales (approximately $64.4 million, equating to Rs. 437.96 crores) and deposit Rs. 14.5 crores for sales during the suit’s pendency, failing which an injunction would be enforced. The defendants appealed via FAO(OS)(COMM) 186/2019, seeking a stay through CM APPL. 35213/2019.
On August 8, 2019, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing the need to protect the plaintiff’s interests given the defendants’ lack of assets in India. The defendants then filed SLP(C) 21938/2019 before the Supreme Court, which on September 20, 2019, declined to interfere. On April 10, 2023, the Division Bench allowed the defendants to produce the allegedly infringing antenna for expert examination and modified the deposit requirement to a bank guarantee for 10% of sale proceeds.
Amid concerns over Ace Technologies’ financial stability—evidenced by a 64.90% drop in share value—the plaintiff filed I.A. 36658/2024 under Section 151 CPC, seeking a further bank guarantee of Rs. 290 crores (25% of the claimed Rs. 1160 crores). The suit was at the evidence-recording stage when judgment was pronounced on July 1, 2025. The defendants challenged this order in SLP(C) 20326/2025 before the Supreme Court, listed for hearing on August 1, 2025.
Core Dispute
The core issues included:
- The validity of the plaintiff’s patent.
- Whether the defendants’ antennas infringed it.
- The necessity of interim financial safeguards given the defendants’ foreign status and limited Indian assets.
The plaintiff argued for patent validity and infringement, stressing the novelty of asymmetrical beam patterns and presenting technical evidence. They also cited South Korea’s non-reciprocal status under Section 44A CPC as justification for substantial bank guarantees. The defendants challenged the patent’s validity based on prior art and claimed distinct beam patterns, while opposing further security deposits.
Discussion on Judgments
Both parties relied on precedents, including the Mobi Antenna case and Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill & Smith, to argue on patent interpretation and financial risk. The plaintiff stressed past non-recovery issues with foreign defendants; the defendants argued limited applicability of cited cases and questioned the plaintiff’s technical evidence.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Saurabh Banerjee found the plaintiff’s patent prima facie valid and accepted their infringement evidence. The court drew an adverse inference from the defendants’ withholding of technical data and emphasized financial risk due to negligible Indian assets and South Korea’s non-reciprocal status. Section 151 CPC was invoked to secure Rs. 290 crores in addition to the earlier Rs. 70 crores deposit.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application, directing Ace Technologies to deposit Rs. 290 crores as a bank guarantee or fixed deposit within four weeks, alongside the existing Rs. 70 crores. Sales were permitted to continue pending trial, subject to compliance.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment affirms that courts can invoke Section 151 CPC in cross-border IP disputes to secure interim financial relief when foreign defendants lack enforceable Indian assets, especially in non-reciprocal jurisdictions. It reinforces that patent validity at the interim stage is assessed on novelty and inventive step, and adverse inferences can be drawn from withholding crucial evidence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Communication Components Antenna Inc. Vs. Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors.
- Date of Order: 1st July, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 1222/2018
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5107
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
