Delhi High Court Finds Rosenberger Guilty of Patent Infringement, Orders $17.7 Million in Damages

On March 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court (DHC) delivered a final judgment in the patent infringement dispute between Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCA) and the Rosenberger Group and its affiliates. The court held that 11 antenna models of Rosenberger infringed CCA’s Indian Patent No. 240893 titled “Asymmetric Beams for Spectrum Efficiency,” ordered Rosenberger to pay $17.7 million in damages, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the manufacture, sale, distribution, and import of the infringing products in India.

Indian Patent No. 240893 (“Asymmetric Beams for Spectrum Efficiency”), owned by CCA, has a priority date tracing back to a Canadian patent application filed in 2006. It was granted in India in 2010 and remains in force until 2027. The core technology transforms traditional symmetric sector antennas into “split-sector antennas” – by dividing a single sector into multiple asymmetric sub-sector coverage areas, the invention reduces sector handover overlap while maintaining key coverage performance, thereby significantly improving user capacity and spectrum efficiency of communication networks. The corresponding U.S. patent (No. 8,311,582) has survived validity challenges before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and CCA has achieved over $50 million in sales in North America based on this technology.

The Rosenberger Group, a globally renowned player in the communications equipment industry, holds a 30%-40% share of the Indian telecom antenna market. Its various affiliates are engaged in antenna design, manufacturing, and sales. The 11 accused products (including models MB-4Q9X30V-00, S-Wave U/U-33-20DV10-BS, etc.) are among Rosenberger’s main product lines.

In the litigation, Rosenberger sought to invalidate the patent-in-suit on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficient disclosure, and vague claims. It also cited the European Patent Office’s (EPO) rejection of a corresponding application for insufficient disclosure, and the revocation of a related Chinese patent by the China Patent Reexamination Board, as supporting arguments.

The Delhi High Court, after examination, held that the prior art did not address the combined technical effect achieved by replacing a sector with split sectors, and thus the patent was novel and inventive. A person skilled in the art could reproduce the technical effect based on the disclosure in the patent, satisfying the requirement of “sufficient disclosure” under Section 10 of the Indian Patents Act. Foreign examination conclusions have no binding effect on Indian courts due to differences in legal standards. Consequently, the court confirmed that the patent is valid and enforceable.

On infringement, CCA argued that Rosenberger’s products fell within the essential technical features of the patent. In support, CCA’s expert input the power and phase weighting parameters disclosed in the patent into a MATLAB simulation system to generate a standard asymmetric beam pattern, which was then overlaid with beam patterns published in Rosenberger’s product brochures. The comparison showed a high degree of similarity in shape characteristics, asymmetric distribution patterns, half-power beamwidth, and other key parameters.

Furthermore, evidence showed that Rosenberger had entered into a confidentiality agreement with CCA in 2017 for patent licensing negotiations. After failing to reach an agreement, Rosenberger continued to sell the relevant products and, during the litigation, unilaterally removed certain marketing materials from its website. Rosenberger defended itself by claiming that its products used a Butler matrix design and that any asymmetry was caused by environmental noise, but it provided no technical verification evidence. The court rejected this defense and found all 11 accused products infringing.

In calculating damages, the court applied the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022. Considering the duration of infringement, number of infringing models, scale of infringement, and other factors, the court awarded: (i) $14.2 million for lost profits resulting from CCA’s forced price competition, and (ii) $3.5 million as reasonable royalty compensation based on comparable license agreements, for a total of $17.7 million.

The permanent injunction takes effect from the date of judgment. Rosenberger is required to clear the infringing products from the market within 90 days; failure to comply may result in asset seizure, fines, and other enforcement measures. As of press time, the Rosenberger Group has not announced whether it will appeal. China Intellectual Property Lawyer Network will continue to follow developments.