Delhi High Court Dismisses Philips’ Video CD Patent Infringement Claim

Court says company failed to prove infringement; 21-year legal battle ends

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 21-year-old patent infringement suit filed by Philips against a Delhi-based optical disc manufacturer. The court ruled that the electronics giant failed to prove that the defendants had infringed its patent related to Video CD (VCD) technology.

Philips had filed the case in 2004, alleging that BCI Optical Disc Limited and others had copied its patented system used in VCDs. The company claimed its technology covered a system involving a transmitter, receiver, and transmission medium used in encoding and decoding digital video content.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who heard the matter, held that Philips could not establish infringement of each element of its patent claim. The court said the plaintiff did not map the essential components of the patent to the processes used by the defendants.


Patent expired during litigation

The judgment noted that Philips’ patent had already expired in 2010, during the pendency of the case. The expiry meant that the company could no longer claim monopoly rights over the technology.

The court observed that even before expiry, Philips had not produced adequate technical evidence to prove that the defendants’ products or systems contained the same features as its patented invention.

“The plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants’ process incorporates all the essential elements of the patented system,” the court said.


Replication process not infringement

The defendants argued that they were only replicating discs from master copies supplied by other sources. They stated that they did not create or encode the original master discs that contained the video data.

The court accepted this argument. It ruled that the process of replication—simply copying data onto new discs—does not amount to infringing a system patent that relates to data transmission or encoding.

Justice Singh said the act of replication lacked the “functional steps” that formed part of Philips’ patented method.


Philips targeted wrong parties

The court also remarked that Philips should have taken legal action against the companies that created the original master discs instead of the replicators.

It said Philips had failed to demonstrate how the replication process used by BCI Optical involved any step that used the patented technology.

This observation highlighted the court’s focus on identifying direct infringers rather than secondary participants in the supply chain.


Significance of the ruling

The decision reinforces the principle that in patent infringement suits, the burden of proof lies on the patent holder. A plaintiff must demonstrate how every element of a patent claim is used by the alleged infringer.

Legal experts say the ruling will influence how multinational corporations approach patent enforcement in India. It underlines the importance of detailed claim mapping and technical evidence before filing infringement suits.

The case also demonstrates the practical challenge of enforcing technology patents that expire during lengthy litigation. Once a patent expires, it loses protection, limiting the remedies a company can seek.


Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling marks the end of a legal battle that began more than two decades ago. Philips’ attempt to enforce its Video CD patent has ended in defeat, with the court holding that the company failed to establish infringement or provide sufficient proof.

The case highlights a broader issue in India’s patent litigation landscape — the need for timely resolution and stronger technical documentation in complex technology disputes.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Castrol Over ‘3X’ Mark on Engine Oil Packaging

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Castrol Limited in a trademark dispute concerning its ‘3X PROTECTION’ mark used on engine oil packaging. The ruling shields the company from alleged groundless threats and ensures business continuity until the next hearing.

Court Proceedings

A single judge delivered the order on September 4, 2025, after hearing Castrol’s plea. The lubricant manufacturer complained that the Nashik police, allegedly influenced by the defendant, Sanjay Sonavane, had seized its products bearing the ‘3X’ mark from an authorized distributor.

Castrol argued that the action was unwarranted and based on a false claim of similarity between its ‘3X’ marks and Sonavane’s registered ‘3P’ marks in Class 4, which cover oils, lubricants, and greases.

Court’s Findings

The High Court observed that the only common element between the two sets of marks was the numeral “3.” It held that exclusive rights cannot be claimed over a single digit, particularly when the overall trade dress, wording, and design were distinct.

The Court concluded that Castrol had made out a prima facie case of harassment through unjustified threats. It also ruled that such actions could not be allowed to disrupt legitimate business operations.

Interim Relief Granted

Accordingly, the Court restrained Sanjay Sonavane from issuing or pursuing groundless threats of trademark or copyright infringement against Castrol. The interim protection will continue until the next date of hearing, scheduled for December 9, 2025.

Broader Implications

This ruling reinforces the principle that numerical elements alone do not establish trademark exclusivity. It also highlights judicial support for companies facing misuse of enforcement mechanisms in intellectual property disputes.

Earlier this year, in February 2025, the Delhi High Court had awarded Castrol ₹20 lakh in damages and issued a permanent injunction in another case involving its ‘ACTIV’ and ‘ACTIBOND’ marks. The latest relief further strengthens the company’s position in protecting its distinctive branding and trade dress.