ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi – Legal Analysis and Commercial Implications Conqueror Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. , FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025 — Delhi High Court (Division Bench), decided 7 September 2026 Brief Summary In a judgment that will interest any technology company selling into India — and any patentee contemplating enforcement there — a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to injunct Xiaomi's ubiquitous "Find Device" anti-theft feature. The Court upheld the Single Judge's conclusion that the patentee had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, that a nine-year delay disentitled it to interim relief, and that the balance of convenience lay with the manufacturer. The decision is notable less for any new rule of law than for the disciplined way it applies several settled ones at once: the narrow scope of appellate interference with discretionary interim orders...

Introduction In intellectual property disputes, few procedural issues matter as much as deciding where a case can be filed. The choice of court often shapes the entire journey of the case — from how quickly interim orders are granted, to the attitude of the local lawyers, to the practical burden placed on a defendant who must fight far from home. Because the forum is so important, plaintiffs sometimes try to influence it. The most common method is the trap purchase : a test buy arranged by the plaintiff, where an investigator pretends to be a regular customer, purchases the allegedly infringing product, and keeps the invoice and packaging. Later, this evidence is used not only to show infringement but — more controversially — to argue that the cause of action arose within the territory of the chosen court. Trap purchases are not new, nor are they automatically improper. In cases of counterfeiting or passing‑off, they are often the only way a rights‑holder can move from mere hear...