The Delhi High Court has ruled in the country’s first anti-anti-suit-injunction (AASI). This is likely the first case globally where an AASI was granted after an anti-suit-injunction (ASI) was already passed by a foreign court.

On May 3, 2021, the High Court pronounced a decision in favour of US-headquartered technology company, InterDigital in its battle against Chinese multinational, Xiaomi Corporation. This judgement confirmed its October 9, 2020 order where it granted an ad interim AASI against Xiaomi, directing it to not pursue or enforce the injunction it had secured from the Wuhan Court.

The High Court has directed Xiaomi to indemnify InterDigital against any penalty should the Chinese court impose daily fines against InterDigital for pursuing the suit filed by it in India. The India lawsuit claims injunction and damages against Xiaomi for infringement of its Standard Essential Patents.

The Delhi High Court judgement births principles for Indian jurisprudence that govern the grant of an anti-anti-suit or an anti-enforcement injunction. These principles shed light on this area as there was no precedent in Indian law for this aspect previously. The High Court clarified that there is no reason for an AASI to be seen as rarer than an ASI, particularly when grounds justifying it have been established. The “rarity” defence had been raised in the past. The ruling also upheld that the principle of Comity of Courts is a two-way street.

InterDigital was represented by an Anand and Anand team including partners Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal, and associates Siddhant Chamola and Pallavi Bhatnagar. Senior advocate Gourab Banjerji led the arguments in court for InterDigital.