Context: As global patent holders increasingly seek enforcement in India against foreign defendants, the Delhi High Court (HC) has stepped in with a decisive interim ruling that may reshape the enforcement landscape —part of a broader trend seen in earlier cases such as the Dolby–HMD dispute over SEP royalty deposits (March 20, 2025 ip fray article) . In a suit filed by Canadian company Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA) against South Korea-based Ace Technologies Corp., related to Indian Patent No. 240893, owned by CCA, which specializes in cellular base station technology, the court has ordered the defendant to furnish a ₹290 crore ($35 million USD) bank guarantee. The sum of 25% of the plaintiff’s estimated damages has been deemed necessary to secure a meaningful remedy, given Ace’s lack of attachable Indian assets and the challenges of enforcing judgments abroad.
What’s new: In its July 1, 2025 decision, the Delhi HC held that Ace Technologies, having limited assets in India and having ceased operations in the jurisdiction, posed a credible risk of non-compliance with any future decree. Justice Saurabh Banerjee concluded that the foreign status of the defendant—combined with a 65% decline in market value and lack of reciprocity with India under Section 44A CPC—warranted protective action.
Direct Impact: The Delhi HC has directed South Korea-based Ace Technologies Corp. to deposit â‚ą290 crores (approximately $35 million) as security in addition to â‚ą70 crores (approximately $8 million) previously ordered in 2019. Noting the sharp decline in Ace Technologies’ financial health and its discontinued operations in India, the court held that securing 25% of the claimed â‚ą1160 crores ($139 million) in damages was essential to protect the plaintiff’s rights and ensure meaningful enforcement if CCA prevails at trial.
Wider ramifications: This judgment is likely to be cited in other Indian IP litigation, particularly against foreign entities in cases where enforceability across jurisdictions is burdensome. By reinforcing the judiciary’s ability to demand interim security from defendants with no domestic footprints. The court’s approach could influence ongoing and future cases involving defendants from jurisdictions like China or South Korea that lack treaty-based enforcement mechanisms with India. It also reinforces India’s growing stance as a forum willing to protect the substantive rights of patent holders.
Reasons
The court stated the following principle:
“A decree must be enforceable—not symbolic.”
Rejecting the defense’s opposition, the court cited Supreme Court decisions—including Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra and Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (both of which are in reference to procedural aspects)—to affirm that interim relief may be granted even when it resembles final relief, particularly when a delay would render the decree ineffectual.
The court also referred to analogous cases, including Nokia v. Oppo (a SEP case) and Rxprism Health Systems v. Canva, where foreign defendants with minimal Indian presence were directed to furnish security deposits to preserve the utility of judicial proceedings.
The ruling has been widely welcomed in the patent litigation community. While no formal statement has been made by CCA, the plaintiff’s legal team described the ruling as a “necessary measure to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”
Three key takeways from the ruling
- The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, rather than proceeding under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, as the defendants lacked attachable Indian assets.
- The court noted that enforcement concerns were heightened because South Korea is not a “reciprocating territory,” meaning that foreign decrees must independently satisfy conditions under Korea’s Article 217 Civil Procedure Act.
- Prior interim rulings—including a ₹70 crore (approximately $8 million) deposit from 2019—were deemed insufficient in light of recent developments in the defendants’ financial position.
Rationale behind the court’s caution
The Delhi High Court’s decision is likely to be seen as a robust interim mechanism for intellectual property holders engaged in cross-border litigation. In court, CCA argued that its damages estimate of ₹1160 crores (approximately $140 million) was based on evidence already placed on record. Citing a prior matter—CCA v. Mobi Antenna Technologies, where a ₹217 crore (approximately $26 million) decree went unenforced against a Chinese entity—CCA emphasized the urgency of securing interim protection in the present case.
The court remarked, “Unless adequate safeguards are put in place at this stage, the very purpose and interest of justice shall be rendered otiose.” It also emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of patent holders, reinforcing India’s evolving IP jurisprudence aimed at balancing innovation incentives with effective remedies.
Defense counsel countered that Korea’s laws already provide for recognition of foreign judgments and that the plaintiff was attempting to bypass formal requirements for attachment under Indian law. They also contended that no conclusive infringement had been proven and that the 2019 deposit of ₹70 crores already demonstrated good faith.
Court and counsel
Justice Saurabh Banerjee entered this order.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA) was represented by Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Deepankar Mishra, Aditya Goel and Avinash K. Sharma.
Ace Technologies Corp. and Ors. are represented by Suraj Kumar Singh, Bharat Sing and Abhay Singh.