Delhi High Court Rules on Xiaomi’s ‘Find Device’ Feature
On September 7, the Delhi High Court decided not to impose an injunction against Xiaomi Technology India’s use of its ‘Find Device’ feature in its mobile phones. This decision came after the court found no prima facie infringement of a patent held by Conqueror Innovations Private Limited, which claims to protect technology aimed at recovering stolen mobile devices.
Background of the Case
The legal battle, titled Conqueror Innovations Vs Xiaomi, reached the bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The appellants, Conqueror Innovations and the inventor of the ‘Communication Device Finder System’, challenged a prior order from July 2025 that denied them interim relief. The court upheld the previous decision, noting that Xiaomi’s technology did not encompass the essential features of the patented system.
Key Differences in Technology
According to the appellants, their invention was conceived following a 2004 burglary in which the inventor lost 152 mobile phones. It was designed to locate and recover stolen devices without law enforcement assistance. They argued that Xiaomi’s devices, which include smartphones, tablets, and laptops, utilized crucial elements of their patented system.
However, the court identified significant functional differences between the two systems. Conqueror’s patented technology allows an authorized user to control a stolen phone even if attempts are made to disable its security features. A notable feature is an ‘auto-answer mode,’ which can silently answer incoming calls, enabling the owner or investigator to listen to surroundings without the thief’s knowledge.
In contrast, Xiaomi’s ‘Find Device’ feature allows users to play sounds, lock devices remotely, and erase data but lacks the silent auto-answer capability. Additionally, the feature becomes non-functional if the device is reset to factory settings. The court found this difference to be central to the ruling, as mere similarities in enabling remote control do not constitute infringement.
More Read
Legal Arguments and Court’s Conclusion
The appellants’ argument that the ‘auto-answer mode’ should be interpreted as remote activation was rejected. The court noted that the appellants themselves described the feature as one that answers calls silently, without alerting unauthorized users. Thus, the single-judge had not imposed any new limitation on the patent.
The court also backed the finding that Xiaomi’s feature did not include another essential component related to non-erasable data storage and reinstallation. It was noted that Xiaomi had been operating in India since 2014, while the lawsuit was initiated only in 2023. The court viewed this delay, alongside the imminent expiration of the patent on October 17, as reasons enough to deny interim relief.
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate CM Lall and a legal team including Rahul Chaudhry, Nikhil Sharma, Sidharth Sharma, and Divesh Vashist. Xiaomi’s defense was represented by advocates L Badri Narayanan, Prashant Phillips, Vindhya S Mani, Pallasash Shankhdhar, Kartikay Singha, Ardra Goodwin, and Khushi Lokwani.
