Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & ... vs Geetech Medical Systems And Services & ... on 13 March, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & … vs Geetech Medical Systems And Services & … on 13 March, 2026

Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela

              $~22
              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              +         CS(COMM) 233/2026

                        PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS NETHERLAND BV & ANR.
                                                                        .....Plaintiffs
                                      Through: Ms. Hiral Gupta, Ms. Sneha Jaisingh,
                                               Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Ms. Subhalaxmi
                                               Sen and Ms. Swati Panda, Advocates.

                                                      versus

                        GEETECH MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICES & ORS.
                                                                      .....Defendants
                                     Through: Ms. Amee Rana, Ms. Sana Banyal, Ms.
                                              Komal Pathak and Ms. Bhavnish Kaur,
                                              Advocates for D-10/Meta.
                                              Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC
                                              with Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates DoT &
                                              MEITY.

                        CORAM:
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                      ORDER

% 13.03.2026
I.A. 6391/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from
instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act‘).

SPONSORED

2. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi:

(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
Mediation is granted.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 1 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

4. This is an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking exemption
from serving notice under Section 80 of the CPC to defendant no.8.

5. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. The plaintiffs are
exempted from issuing notice to the defendant no.8 at this stage.

6. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 6393/2026 (Additional Documents)

7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits under the
CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

8. The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance
with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018.

9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 6394/2026 (Seeking leave to file documents in USB Drive)

10. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, filed on
behalf of plaintiffs seeking leave to file documents in USB Drive.

11. In facts and circumstances as stated in the application, the same is
allowed. The CD / pen drive be taken on record.

12. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 6395/2026 (Seeking extension of time to file Court Fees)

13. The present application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section
149 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking extension of time to file the
requisite Court Fees at the time of the filing of the suit.

14. Considering the submissions made in the present application, an
extension of two weeks is granted to affix the requisite court fees.

15. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 2 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

16. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order II
Rule 2(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking leave to sue the
defendants to claim any further damages.

17. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and plaintiffs
are permitted to sue the defendants to claim any further damages.

18. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 6397/2026 (Exemption from advance service to D-2 to D-5 & 11)

19. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC
seeking exemption from advance service to the defendant.

20. Ms. Hiral Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that given the
clandestine and illegal nature of the contesting defendants’ operations, the
plaintiffs have reasonable grounds to believe that there may be a larger group
of individuals / entities which are involved in these illegal activities, details of
whom are not available with the plaintiffs at present and who are impleaded
as defendant no. 11, the plaintiffs may be exempted from issuing advance
service to defendant nos.2 to 5 and 11.

21. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Plaintiffs are
exempted from issuing advance notice to the defendant nos. 2 to 5 and 11 at
this stage.

22. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 6390/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1& 2, CPC)

23. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908, seeking ex-parte ad-interim
injunction against the defendants.

24. The plaintiffs are part of Koninklijke Phillips Group, a Dutch
multinational Conglomerate and a global leader in health technology. The
parent company is stated to have been incorporated in the year 1891 under the

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 3 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02
laws of the Netherlands. Plaintiff no.1 manufactures medical instruments and
apparatus and was founded in 1987 and specialises in areas like interventional
guided therapy, cardiovascular care and magnetic resonance imaging. Plaintiff
no.2 is the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and
primarily focuses on healthcare system and personal healthcare, importing,
distributing and servicing products like diagnostics imaging equipment.

25. Plaintiffs claim to have gained global recognition for developing
dynamic technology solutions for the evolving healthcare needs and are
recognised industry leaders. Numerous prestigious awards have been
conferred upon the plaintiffs as mentioned in para 7 of the application.
Plaintiffs develop, sell, support, maintain and service medical imaging
systems, including computed tomography (CT) systems, x-ray systems,
nuclear medical systems, PET scanners, MR scanners and Ultrasound
machines. The said products are controlled through the proprietary software
created and developed by the plaintiffs, who have their intellectual property
rights built in.

26. Plaintiffs claim that their diagnostic system and the copyrighted
software is a preferred choice for hospitals, medical centres, healthcare
institutions in India and over 100 countries around the world. Some of such
institutions have collaborated and partnered with the plaintiffs for research
and development and are mentioned in para 9 of the application. The Phillips
Group IP portfolio currently consists of approximately 50,500 patent rights,
30,500 trademarks, 150,000 design rights and 3,200 domain names. Plaintiffs
claim that the European Patent Office has named it as one of the leaders in
medical technology. Plaintiffs assert that it is a trusted producer, manufacturer
and supplier of medical imaging systems worldwide, garnering substantial
goodwill under the ‘Phillips’ trademark. The said trademark has been enlisted
as a well-known trademark after being recognised by the Punjab & Haryana

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 4 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

27. Plaintiffs claim that the proprietary software is developed and owned
by the plaintiffs, which control key functions of the medical diagnostic system
and enables the plaintiffs to control, update and track the use of their system’s
software. The proprietary and copyrighted software embedded within
plaintiffs’ system including restricted components that cannot be accessed or
utilised by the users or purchasers of the system. Plaintiffs also claim to have
developed extensive proprietary technologies, know-how, documentation and
software for servicing the diagnostic system. It claims that even access to this
proprietary software is restricted to a certain level. In order to provide a
comprehensive customer service and maintenance support system to the
diagnostic system, the plaintiffs have developed an extensive proprietary
system, documentation and software collectively known as Customer Service
Intellectual Property (CSIP), which is critical for managing, servicing,
updating and monitoring those systems.

28. The aforesaid software and documentation are developed and owned by
the plaintiffs and represent years of research, development and technical
innovation. The access to the CSIP is restricted through technical control,
contractual obligation and internal security measures. The employees, service
providers and trade partners are required to execute non-disclosure
agreements and adhere to the need – to – know restrictions. This proprietary
software and servicing material are ordinarily licensed, not sold. In India, the
access to restricted portions of CSIP is not available to the customers and the
said support is for a fee either directly or through their authorised trade
partners. To supplement these restrictions, plaintiffs implemented a digital
rights management solution called Integrated Security Tool (IST), developed,
created and exclusively owned by Phillips Group. The manner in which this

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 5 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

29. The aforesaid software, CSIP material, the instructions manual, the IST
applications and certificates are stated to be covered under the definition of
“Literary Work” and are entitled to copyright protection. Such materials
embedded or incorporated in the diagnostic system also comprise trade secrets
and other commercially sensitive confidential information. In order to protect
its interest, the plaintiffs monitor real time threat and analysis risk to the
security and confidentiality of the aforesaid intellectual property.

30. The infringing and illicit activity of defendant no.1 is mentioned in para
47 of the application. Some of such screen shots of the defendant no.1
infraction and infringement are reproduced hereunder

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 6 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02

31. Plaintiffs have been given to understand that defendant no.1 has been
indulging in counterfeiting of the various proprietary softwares and
documents including the IST certificates issued by it. Third party
investigation carried out in the month of March, 2023 revealed infractions,
which are detailed in para 49 of the application. The investigator also made an
initial purchase of the IST certificate for Rs.4,11,151/- and further purchased
for Rs.2,49,592/- of such certificates from defendant no.1. The details of such
delivery contained in the packages in June, 2023 are detailed in para 53 and
54 of the application. On instructions of the defendant no.1 various branches
of payments were made to defendant no.2, defendant no.3 as detailed in para
57 of the application. The said certificates which were delivered on smart
cards turned out to be counterfeit on testing and carrying out analysis. The
details of counterfeit IST certificates are mentioned in para 60 of the
application. Plaintiffs assert and affirm that these certificates are neither
originated from the plaintiffs nor complied with their authorised accessed
protocol and reveal other indicia which are detailed in para 61 of the
application.

32. Further investigations from defendant no.1 reveal cross border piracy,
which are clearly detailed in para 63 to 66 of the application. The
representative screen shot of the counterfeit IST certificates alongwith their
entitlements is reproduced hereunder:

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 8 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02

33. Plaintiff submits that this Court passed interim orders in similarly
placed cases as mentioned in para 71 of the application. The aforesaid facts,

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 9 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02
according to the plaintiffs, constitute not only copyright infringement but also
amounts to misappropriation of the plaintiffs’ confidential information,
processes, technologies and trade secrets developed to protect its CSIP.
Plaintiffs also assert that these illicit activities also pose serious risk to public
health and safety by potentially disrupting normal functionality of the
plaintiffs’ system. Such counterfeit IST certificates may lead to degraded
image quality or diagnostic inaccuracies which may compromise a patient’s
safety. Thus, such illicit acts infringe the copyrights of the plaintiffs.

34. Predicated upon the above, the plaintiffs seek an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction and other reliefs.

35. Having heard Ms. Hiral Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs,
perusing the pleadings and the documents on record, it appears that an ex-
parte ad-interim injunction would be in order. The plaintiffs have made out a
strong prima facie case in their favour. The plaintiffs appears to be the owners
of the proprietary software, CSIP materials, IST certificates and associated
intellectual property, all of which constitute “Literary Works” protected under
the Copyright Act, 1957. The defendant no.1 appears to be engaged in the
systematic counterfeiting and unauthorized reproduction of plaintiffs’ IST
certificates and proprietary service documentation, as evidenced by the third
party integration conducted in March, 2023, the test purchases therefrom, and
the forensic analysis confirming the counterfeit nature of the said certificates.
The balance of convenience also lies in the favour of the plaintiffs, as
permitting the defendants to continue with the infringing activities would
cause irreparable harm and injury to the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights,
commercial reputation and goodwill, which cannot be adequately
compensated in monetary terms.

36. Accordingly, the following directions are passed:

a. Defendant No. 1, operating through defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3,

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 10 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02
defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 5 (and such other individuals/entities
which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been
engaging in infringing the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights) including
unidentified, partially identified defendants, their proprietors,
promoters, directors, partners, assigns, sister concern, affiliates,
relatives, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, representatives,
servants, distributors, employees, agents etc. or anyone associated with
them are restrained from infringing or dealing with, in any manner, the
plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
copyright, trademark, in the proprietary software used, and, or installed
in, its medical imaging devices by making counterfeit replicas, creating
unauthorised copies of plaintiffs’ authentic and genuine proprietary
software, by offering for sale, selling and / or distributing such
counterfeit or unauthorised copies of the plaintiffs’ proprietary software
through any and all mediums.

b. Defendant No. 1, operating through defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3,
defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 5 (and such other individuals/entities
which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been
engaging in infringing the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights) including
unidentified, partially identified defendants, their proprietors,
promoters, directors, partners, assigns, sister concern, affiliates,
relatives, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees, representatives,
servants, distributors, employees, agents etc. or anyone associated with
them are restrained from infringing or dealing with, in any manner, the
plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights, including but not limited to
copyright, trademark, in the proprietary software used, and, or installed
in, its medical imaging devices by circumventing or enabling or
encouraging third parties to circumvent, the technological measures or

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 11 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02
digital rights management mechanisms designed to protect the
plaintiffs’ intellectual property to gain unauthorised access to the
plaintiffs’ proprietary software and make unauthorised modifications to
the proprietary software of the plaintiffs.

c. Defendant nos. 6 to 8 are directed to furnish the details including the
user details for the contact numbers +91 91 9911766733 and +91
7625055656 to the plaintiffs within three weeks from date.
d. Defendant no.9 is directed to disclose all details, including the account
holder details, associated with the Bank Account Nos.50100204721555
and 50100094550855 to plaintiffs within three weeks from date.
e. Defendant no.10 is directed to take down the Facebook Account under
the name “Geetech Medical Systems and Services”, created by
defendant no. 1 within 72 hours.

f. The statement of accounts for the profits made by defendant nos.1 to 5
be filed in a sealed cover by way of an affidavit and are directed to
maintain status quo.

37. Plaintiffs are permitted to file an affidavit before the Joint Registrar to
implead any more websites or webpages under Order I Rule 10 of CPC in the
event they merely provide new means of accessing the web listings of
defendant no.1 distributing or offering for sale of the counterfeit products
which are sought to be injuncted by way of the present suit.

38. Plaintiffs are at liberty to seek extension of injunction orders against the
third parties once impleaded.

39. Issue notice.

40. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendant within four
weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks
thereafter.

41. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 12 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

CS(COMM) 233/2026

42. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

43. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the
defendant through all permissible modes.

44. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith
the Written Statement, the defendant shall also file Affidavit of
Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the
Written Statement shall not be taken on record.

45. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30
days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be
taken on record.

46. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in
their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the
list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

47. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.

48. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 14.05.2026 for completion
of service and pleadings.

49. List before the Court on 14.09.2026.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
MARCH 13, 2026
rl/kct

CS(COMM) 233/2026 Page 13 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/03/2026 at 21:36:02

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

The Sunday Blog Post by the University of Calcutta

Goa Judicial Services Exam Mains 2020 Paper-I (Civil Law)

Bombay High Court rules against arbitrary cancellation of religious event

Legal Systems Are Paying Closer Attention To Mental Health During Complex Cases

The Sunday Blog Post by the University of Calcutta

Goa Judicial Services Exam Mains 2020 Paper-I (Civil Law)

Bombay High Court rules against arbitrary cancellation of religious event

Legal Systems Are Paying Closer Attention To Mental Health During Complex Cases

Philips Medical Systems Netherland Bv & … vs Geetech Medical Systems And Services & … on 13 March, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders