In a setback to Dutch electronics giant Philips, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a 21-year-old patent infringement case it had filed against a Delhi-based company over the replication and sale of Video Compact Discs (VCDs).

The Court, in its ruling on October 13, said Philips failed to demonstrate that its patented “Digital Transmission System” had been used by the defendants, observing that the company’s evidence was “fundamentally flawed.”

The suit, filed in 2004, had accused BCI Optical Disc Ltd and a local retail outlet of violating Philips’ patent rights by manufacturing and selling VCDs using technology allegedly covered under its patent.

A 21-year legal marathon ends in defeat

Justice Mini Pushkarna, who delivered the verdict, found that the process Philips used to compare its patented system with the defendants’ product was inconsistent with the law. The Court said Philips’ patent was based on three elements,  a transmitter, receiver and transmission medium,  none of which were proven to exist in the defendants’ replication process.

“The plaintiff has failed to show that each aspect of the defendants’ product is covered by the features of the claim of suit patent,” the Court stated. “The process of replication does not involve any transmission or compression mechanism,” it added. Effectively, the Court said that replicating Video CDs from a Master CD did not amount to patent infringement. Philips’ failure to map its patent claims to the defendants’ process, a requirement under the Delhi High Court Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, also weakened its case.

Patent expired, case dragged on

The patent in question had already expired in 2010, but the case continued as the Court examined whether Philips was entitled to damages for past infringement.

Philips argued that the patent in dispute was a Standard Essential Patent (SEP), meaning that its technology was fundamental to the international standards governing VCDs. However, the Court rejected that claim as well, noting that Philips had failed to produce an independent standard essentiality report or conclusive technical evidence.

“The plaintiff has relied only on its own claim mapping, which does not establish that the system claimed in the suit patent maps with the ISO/IEC 11172-3 standard,” the Court said.

Implications for the brand

The ruling brings closure to a rare case of patent litigation in India’s consumer electronics space, highlighting the growing need for companies to present robust technical evidence in IP disputes.

For Philips — a brand long associated with innovation and technology leadership — the defeat underlines the challenges multinational corporations face in asserting legacy IP rights in fast-changing product categories.

The company had previously told the Court that it had created a “patent pool” with other technology firms covering various VCD-related inventions, for which it licensed usage to Indian manufacturers. BCI Optical, the defendant, had initially corresponded with Philips over licensing but later ceased engagement, prompting the lawsuit.

After two decades of litigation, the Delhi High Court found that Philips had not proven any infringement and dismissed the case on the merits.