IP litigation — defend what makes your business valuable.
Your intellectual property is often your most valuable commercial asset. When it is threatened, you need experienced IP litigators who can act fast. SIRI Law LLP provides full-spectrum intellectual property litigation across India, from urgent injunctions to stop ongoing infringement through to full trial proceedings, appellate work, and cross-border enforcement.
Getting the current patent litigation standard right
The Delhi High Court just overturned an 8-year-old SEP decree — and materially raised the bar for what patent holders must prove.
Some IP litigation content describes patent enforcement generically — file suit, seek an injunction, prove infringement — without noting a landmark 2026 development that has genuinely changed what "proving infringement" now requires for Standard Essential Patents. On 18 May 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in K.K. Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., set aside an 8-year-old royalty decree that had held two small-scale DVD-player assemblers liable for infringing a Philips SEP covering DVD playback technology. In a 150-page judgment, the Bench found that Philips had not proved essentiality of its patent with admissible evidence, had not established infringement on that basis, and — separately — that the defendants' acquisition of components from market-authorised dealers had exhausted Philips' patent rights under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act 1970.
The practical effect for anyone litigating a patent dispute in India today, particularly a SEP matter, is a genuinely higher evidentiary bar. SEP holders are now expected to come to court with claim charts that map patent claims directly onto the actual technical standard, admissible technical evidence of essentiality rather than assertion, and licence agreements and technical or economic experts ready for cross-examination — not merely a plausible prima facie case built on assumption. This doesn't mean interim relief has become unavailable to SEP holders; a separate July 2026 Delhi HC decision, InterDigital v. Transsion, confirmed that the evidentiary threshold for pro tem security remains genuinely lower than for a full interim injunction, and that courts retain real flexibility at that earlier stage. But the final determination of essentiality and infringement now demands considerably more rigorous proof than pre-2026 practice often assumed.
Beyond patents, the broader IP landscape continues to see active litigation around inventive-step challenges, doctrine of equivalents arguments, and revocation proceedings — but the SEP evidentiary shift is the single most consequential development for any technology company holding or facing a standard-essential patent claim in India today.
What we handle
Comprehensive representation across all related matters
From copyright and trademark enforcement through patent disputes, trade secrets, and cross-border IP protection.
Copyright Infringement
Enforcement of copyright in software code, creative works, and technical documentation, including urgent Anton Piller orders.
Trademark Infringement
Passing-off actions, trademark infringement suits, counterfeit seizures, and domain name dispute resolution.
Patent Disputes
Patent infringement suits, invalidity proceedings, SEP/FRAND matters built on the current post-Bansal evidentiary standard, compulsory licensing, and interim injunctions.
Trade Secret & Confidential Information
Misappropriation claims, NDA breach enforcement, and urgent injunctive relief for confidential information theft.
Software & Technology IP
Source code disputes, software copyright enforcement, API access disputes, and reverse engineering proceedings.
Domain Name Disputes
INDRP and UDRP proceedings for cybersquatting and domain name theft.
Counterfeit & Passing Off
Consumer-facing counterfeit campaigns, online marketplace takedowns, and ex parte search and seizure orders.
Cross-Border IP
Multi-jurisdiction enforcement and international trademark oppositions.
IP Due Diligence Disputes
Post-acquisition IP disputes, warranty claims, and IP ownership disputes in M&A contexts.
Evidence, not guesswork
SEP litigation, before and after Bansal v. Philips
What a SEP holder now needs to actually prove, at each stage.
| Requirement | Pro tem security stage | Final infringement determination (post-Bansal) |
|---|---|---|
| Essentiality proof standard | Prima facie view, considering surrounding factors — lower threshold | Admissible technical evidence required — assertion alone insufficient |
| Claim-to-standard mapping | Not required at this stage | Claim charts mapping patent claims to the actual standard expected |
| Third-party licence disclosure | Not mandatory — irrelevant when FRAND rate isn't being finally set | Licence agreements expected as part of the evidentiary record |
| Exhaustion defence | Not typically assessed | Live defence — authorised-channel acquisition can defeat the claim entirely |
Sources: K.K. Bansal & Rajesh Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Delhi HC Division Bench, RFA(OS)(COMM) 17 & 18/2018, decided 18 May 2026; InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. v. Transsion, Delhi HC (2026); Patents Act 1970, §107A(b). Case law in this area continues to develop rapidly — confirm current precedent with counsel before relying on any specific standard for an active matter.
What the numbers actually mean
Four figures that frame IP litigation today
The extensive Division Bench ruling restating SEP evidentiary standards — worth reading in full for any active SEP matter.
For urgent, ongoing infringement — the standard emergency relief window Indian courts apply.
To recover a cybersquatted .in domain through the administrative mechanism.
Now a genuinely live defence for authorised-channel component acquisition, confirmed by the Bansal outcome.
How we work
From audit to enforcement
IP Audit & Infringement Assessment
We identify the infringement, assess strength of claim, and quantify your damages across all relevant IP rights.
Urgent Injunctive Relief
Where infringement is ongoing, we file for urgent injunctions, sometimes ex parte, to stop harm immediately.
Full Litigation
Pleadings, evidence, expert witnesses, and trial management across the full IP litigation lifecycle, built to the current evidentiary standard.
Enforcement & Settlement
Post-judgment enforcement, cross-border orders, and strategic settlement when commercially advantageous.
Case study · Software copyright
Ex parte Anton Piller order secures source code evidence within 48 hours
A Hyderabad SaaS company discovered a former development vendor had incorporated substantial portions of its proprietary source code into a competing product. SIRI Law LLP filed for an ex parte Anton Piller order, securing court authorisation to inspect and preserve digital evidence at the defendant's premises before evidence could be altered or deleted.
The order was granted and executed within 48 hours of the initial filing, preserving forensic copies of the defendant's codebase and establishing a clear evidentiary trail that led to a favourable settlement, including a licensing arrangement and damages, well before trial.
Representative matters
Typical engagements
All matters described generically to protect client confidentiality.
Exhaustion defence raised, claim narrowed
Defended a component manufacturer against a SEP infringement claim, raising an essentiality challenge and a Section 107A(b) exhaustion defence built directly on the current Bansal v. Philips reasoning, materially narrowing the plaintiff's claim before trial.
Coordinated online and offline seizure
Coordinated a multi-platform counterfeit takedown alongside an ex parte search and seizure order against a physical counterfeit distribution operation.
Cybersquatted domain recovered in 45 days
Recovered a cybersquatted .in domain incorporating the client's registered trademark through an INDRP administrative proceeding, concluded well within the typical 60-day window.
Injunction against use of proprietary algorithm
Secured an injunction restraining a former technical employee from using or disclosing proprietary algorithm documentation at a competing venture, grounded in confidentiality obligations rather than a non-compete restraint.
Patent-specific services
Deep dives into specialist IP litigation practice
Why choose SIRI Law LLP
IP litigation grounded in current evidentiary standards
IP infringement requires immediate response. We file for injunctions within hours, not days.
Speed of action
IP infringement requires immediate response. We file for injunctions within hours, not days.
Technology IP expertise
Software, AI, and technology IP is our native territory. We understand the code and the legal arguments.
Cross-border reach
IP enforcement does not stop at borders. We coordinate international enforcement through our global network.
Current on evidentiary standards
We build every patent case, offensive or defensive, on the current post-Bansal evidentiary bar, not the pre-2026 assumptions many practitioners still work from.
The SIRI advantage
Law firm alone vs. security firm alone vs. SIRI Law LLP
| Capability | Law firm only | Security firm only | SIRI Law LLP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital evidence | Cannot collect court-admissible evidence | Findings not protected by privilege | Legal + forensics, privileged from day one |
| Regulatory response | Slow, no in-house technical capacity | Cannot file regulatory notifications or represent in court | Fully integrated — one call handles both |
| Technical staff | No engineers on staff | No litigation capability | Both under one roof |
Frequently asked
IP litigation, answered directly
How quickly can I get an injunction to stop IP infringement?
In cases of urgent or ongoing infringement, Indian courts can grant ex parte interim injunctions within 24 to 72 hours of filing. We prepare emergency applications on short notice.
Has the standard for enforcing a patent, particularly a Standard Essential Patent, changed recently?
Yes, materially. In K.K. Bansal v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., decided 18 May 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside an 8-year-old royalty decree that had been granted in Philips' favour over a DVD-playback Standard Essential Patent, in a 150-page judgment restating the evidentiary standard for SEP litigation. The Bench found Philips had not proved essentiality with admissible evidence, had not established infringement on that basis, and separately upheld a patent exhaustion defence under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act 1970, since the components had been acquired from market-authorised dealers. The practical effect is that SEP holders now face a meaningfully higher evidentiary bar before litigation even begins — claim charts mapping patent claims to the actual standard, admissible technical proof of essentiality, and licence agreements and experts ready for cross-examination, not just a plausible pro tem case. This doesn't abolish interim relief for SEP holders, which Indian courts still grant under the established framework, but it does mean weaker essentiality evidence is now a real vulnerability a defendant can exploit.
Can I sue for copyright infringement of software code?
Yes. Software source code is protected by copyright under the Copyright Act 1957 as a literary work. Civil remedies include injunction, damages, account of profits, and delivery-up.
How are trade secrets protected in India?
Trade secrets are protected through contractual confidentiality obligations, the law of breach of confidence, and tortious liability for misappropriation. We advise on NDA protections that Indian courts will enforce.
Can domain names be recovered from cybersquatters?
Yes. The INDRP provides a rapid administrative mechanism to recover cybersquatted .in domains, typically within 60 days. For gTLDs, we file UDRP complaints with WIPO or ICANN-accredited providers.
Consult a SIRI attorney today
Book a confidential case review. No obligation.
We assess your legal position and advise on strategy, including how the current SEP evidentiary standard affects your matter.
Related services