Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on Monday (January 5, 2026) stayed the execution of money decrees exceeding ₹20 crore passed in favour of Koninklijke Philips N.V., arising from a patent infringement dispute over a technology for converting information words into a modulated signal used in DVD-related processes. The stay will operate once the judgment debtors furnish unconditional and irrevocable, auto-renewable bank guarantees from a nationalised bank covering the principal damages within eight weeks of the order being uploaded and will remain in force till further orders. While dispensing with any immediate deposit of the decretal amounts, the Bench indicated it was not inclined, at this stage, to disturb the Single Judge’s conclusions on infringement and patent validity and did not treat the liability findings as suffering from infirmities warranting a blanket stay.

The dispute arose from three commercial suits instituted by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple DVD replicators, alleging infringement of Indian Patent IN 218255 relating to a method of converting information words into a modulated signal using EFM+ coding technology. The patent, asserted to be a Standard Essential Patent, was relied upon to seek permanent injunctions, damages, and costs. During the pendency of the suits, the patent expired, rendering the relief of injunction infructuous and limiting the controversy to damages.

Also Read: Delay In Depositing Balance Sale Consideration Doesn’t Render Specific Performance Decree Inexecutable; Supreme Court

The defendants contended that they were only engaged in mechanical replication of DVDs using pre-encoded stampers sourced from third parties and did not themselves perform EFM+ encoding. They denied infringement and also challenged the validity of the patent under Sections 64(1)(e), (j), and (m) of the Patents Act, 1970. Evidence included expert testimony, test reports on DVDs, correspondence with stamper suppliers, and promotional materials of the defendants.

The learned Single Judge decreed damages and additional damages against the defendants, applying a FRAND royalty rate and estimating the number of DVDs replicated. Aggrieved, the defendants filed appeals along with applications seeking stay of execution of the money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Division Bench examined the stay applications in light of the principles governing stay of money decrees. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Lifestyle Equities, the Court recorded that “the principles that govern grant of stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC are the same, whether the decree under challenge is, or is not, a money decree” and that unconditional stay may be granted only in exceptional cases.

On infringement, the Court noted that the learned Single Judge had found that the DVDs manufactured and sold by the appellants contained EFM+ encoded signals and therefore fell within Claim 12 of the patent. The Bench observed that “this interpretation may, or may not, ultimately sustain scrutiny when the appeals are heard” but held that it could not be termed “egregiously perverse”, “ridden with patent illegality” or “facially untenable” so as to justify a stay on that ground.

On patent validity, the Court recorded that the findings rejecting challenges under Sections 64(1)(e), (j), and (m) were based on appreciation of evidence and could not, at the interim stage, justify staying the decree. It observed that “no such prima facie case…can be said to have been made out by the appellants” on validity.

However, while examining computation of damages, the Court found serious infirmities. It observed that the assumption that “10,000 DVDs could be replicated from one stamper” had “no basis whatsoever, on the record” and amounted to “entirely the ipse dixit of the learned Single Judge”. Similarly, the estimation of DVD production in one appeal was found to be unsupported by evidence. The Bench recorded that “damages cannot be fastened on a litigant on the basis of mere presumption” and that these findings prima facie attracted the exceptional category warranting interim protection.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Cancels “ACTIVEPUSHPA” Trademark, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “HEMPUSHPA”

The Court directed that “the requirement of deposit per se, by the appellants, of the decretal amount” stood dispensed with. The appellants “furnish an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee, with auto-renewal facility, drawn on a Nationalized Bank, covering the principal amount of damages awarded” within eight weeks from uploading of the judgment.

“On the said amount being deposited, there shall be a stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree till further orders”. The Court clarified that “the deposit is subject to the outcome of the present appeals and shall abide by further orders”. The connected applications were disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Rahul Chaudhry, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Mugdha Palsule, Mr. Avinash; and Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal with assisting advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali R. Mittal, Ms. Pallavi Bhatnagar, Ms. Saijal Arora, Mr. Siddhant Chamola.

Case Title: Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Ors. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:5-DB
Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025, 12/2025, 13/2025 & 14/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla