CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 1 of 11 
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
% Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2026 
Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026 
+ CS(COMM) 575/2023 , CC(COMM) 6/2024, CRL.M.A. 
37879/2025, I.A. 9184/2025, I.A. 18703/2025 & I.A.21860/2025 
ATLAS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC .....Plaintiff 
versus 
TP LINK TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD & ORS. .....Defendants 
Advocates who appeared in this case: 
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Mr. Jitesh 
Prakash Gupta and Mr. Siddhant Chamola, 
Advocates. 
For the Defendants : Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. 
Prashant Gupta, Mr. Abhishek Jain, Mr. Shatadal 
Ghosh and Mr. Munesh Kumar Sharma, 
Advocates. 
CORAM: 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA 
J U D G M E N T 
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J 
IA 31839/2025 (seeking Orders of Security Payment, Imposition of 
Costs and Summoning of Representative of D4) 
1. By way of present application, the plaintiff seeks the following 
relief: 
“i. Direct the Defendants to make payment to the Plaintiff of an 
amount of INR 9,29,62,331 (Rupees Nine Crores, Twenty-Nine 
Lakh, Sixty-Two Thousand, Three-Hundred-Thirty-One) as pro-tem 
security, subject to final determination of damages and 
compensation in the present proceedings. 
ii.Impose heavy costs on the Defendants for furnishing false 
information in the form of C.A certificates dated 15th September 
2023; 3rd February 2024; 7th May 2024; 10th July,2024 ; 16th 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 2 of 11 
October 2024; 17th January 2025, and in I.A 18699/2023 
pertaining to sales made by Defendants for WI-Fi6 compliant 
products in India 
iii. Summon Mr. Ramakanta Routray, CIO and Authorised 
Representative of TP-Link India Private Limited, Defendant No. 4 
for his act of furnishing false information on oath regarding the 
sales of Wi-Fi6 products made by the Defendants in India. 
iv. Direct that the data pertaining to sales made by the Defendants 
in India of Wi-Fi6 compliant products, as reported by the third-party 
organization International Data Corporation (IDC) and filed 
along with the evidence affidavit of Plaintiff’s witness, Mr. Roy 
Weinstein 16 (PW-2) will be treated as admitted matter of fact for 
the purpose of trial and final proceedings; 
2. The present Suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking relief in 
respect of infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to 
Wi-Fi 6 technology. The defendants are stated to be manufacturers and 
sellers of Wi-Fi 6 compliant networking devices in India. The Suit pertains 
to the allegation that the defendants continue to manufacture, import and 
offer for sale Wi-Fi 6 compliant devices without obtaining a licence from 
the plaintiff for the subject SEPs. 
3. Opening for the plaintiffs, Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel invites 
attention of this Court to order dated 28.08.2023, whereby the defendants 
were directed to deposit 1/5th of the amount of the counter offer made by 
the defendants as pro-tem security before the Court. The sum as directed 
was to the extent of USD 1 million. He stated that the Court took notice of 
certain facts like long term knowledge that the defendants had of the 
plaintiff’s SEPs and had been in negotiations for a licence since June, 2021; 
that the defendants continue to sell the Wi-Fi 6 compliant devices in India 
without challenging the plaintiff’s patent; the defendants continued to 
manufacture infringing products locally without paying royalties; large 
number of devices were imported from China but sold without royalty 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 3 of 11 
being paid to the plaintiff and that the defendants had made a counter offer 
in August, 2023 to the tune of . 
4. Mr. Anand, would submit that on an application being I.A 
No.18699/2023, filed by the defendants seeking reduction of the pro-tem 
security amount, vide order dated 13.10.2023, this Court modified the order 
dated 23.08.2023 and reduced the pro-tem deposit to Rs.50 lakhs. In 
support of such application, the defendants had filed Chartered Accountant 
Certificates which indicated low sale figures of Wi-Fi 6 compliant devices. 
As an abundant precaution, the Court, while reducing the quantum, noted 
that the same was a temporary arrangement, subject to further orders once 
the pleadings are complete. 
5. Mr. Anand, would further submit that when the plaintiff pointed out 
glaring inconsistencies between the defendants sale figures quoted in the 
CA certificate and independent market research data including 
International Data Corporation (IDC), this Court vide order dated 
16.04.2025 nominated and appointed an independent Auditor to examine 
the books of accounts of the defendant no.4 in respect of sale of Wi-Fi 6 
compliant devices in India. He stated that the background to such a 
requirement of appointing an Auditor is the order dated 02.08.2023, 
whereby the US Court made certain observations which would amount to 
misrepresentation and a dishonest approach of the defendant. Apart from 
the above, the plaintiff had also compared the figures obtained in the CA 
certificate with the IDC data, and found that the sales figures for Q3 and 
Q4 of the year 2024 showed massive differences and inconsistencies. He 
further submitted that shockingly the Auditor’s report observed a variance 
of Rs.9,29,62,331/- in the audited figures as per the Auditor’s report vis-à-
vis the figures in the CA certificates. 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 4 of 11 
6. He stoutly contended that the aforesaid facts are specifically 
admitted by the defendants, however, the defendants claim that the 
variance is only Rs.7,75,34,277/- and not Rs.9,29,62,331/-. According to 
Mr. Anand, more than the figure, what is relevant is that, the defendants 
unequivocally admit that there indeed is a variance. He would submit that 
the said fact becomes even clearer from the table contained in the Auditor’s 
Report, which is undeniable. 
7. Learned counsel would forcefully contend a party like the defendants 
who have not only misrepresented before the US Court but also 
audaciously misrepresented the true facts and figures before the Auditor 
and has unashamedly admitted to the said discrepancy before this Court, 
cannot be shown any leniency and need to be directed to deposit the entire 
amount as calculated by the Auditor as the enhanced pro-tem security 
before this Court. He would also contend that the Auditor has clearly found 
that the defendants have under-reported/misrepresented the true figures and 
that there is a clear misrepresentation by the defendants. 
8. Mr. Anand, learned counsel would submit that having regard to the 
aforesaid glaring discrepancies, misrepresentation and fraud attempted by 
the defendants, this Court on a very conservative estimate must direct a 
deposit of Rs.9,29,62,331/- at the least. Learned counsel also states that this 
Court may also direct deposit of additional cost which have been incurred 
by the plaintiff which have been necessitated on account of defendant’s 
conduct in terms of Section 35, 35A and 35B of the CPC and Rule 1 of 
Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018. 
9. Per contra, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel appearing for 
the defendants strenuously refuted the submissions of the plaintiffs. He 
would submit that vide the order dated 28.08.2023, this Court had directed 
a pro-tem security deposit to the tune of USD 1 million on the basis of a 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 5 of 11 
counter offer made by the defendant of . However, vide the 
order dated 13.10.2023, this Court had reduced the same on the basis of the 
sales figures furnished by the defendants on valid CA certificates furnished 
alongwith the application seeking reduction of the pro-tem deposit. He 
would submit that the Court was convinced that the actual sales figures, as 
disclosed by the defendants, did not justify the requirement of a deposit of 
USD 1 million. He would submit that on the basis of offer made by the 
plaintiff’s German Counsel through the submitted affidavit, the running 
royalty per device was claimed at which equivalent to -, 
and for 1,94,979 devices, the total royalty in terms of pro-tem security 
would reckon at Rs.12,94,660/- which impelled this Court to secure the 
plaintiff’s interest for future and the quantum was assessed at Rs.50 lakhs. 
10. Predicated on the aforesaid calculations, learned senior counsel 
would submit that the defendants were prepared to make a further deposit, 
without prejudice to the rights and contentions qua the question of whether 
the plaintiff was entitled to any pro-tem security at all, from the period 
28.08.2023 to 31.12.2024 at the rate at which previous deposit was 
calculated. In other words, learned senior counsel would submit that the 
defendant would deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs, though according to him, 
for roughly about 2 lakh devices sold between 29.08.2023 to 31.12.2024 
applying the aforesaid ratio/formula, the actual sum comes to 
approximately Rs.14 lakhs only. 
11. He would submit that plaintiff cannot have any quarrel with the said 
proposition for the reason that the amount calculated above is in 
consonance with their offer as per affidavit of the plaintiff’s counsel. 
12. So far as the allegation of misrepresentation or fraud etc. leveled by 
the plaintiff is concerned, he would submit that there is no substance in the 
same. He would submit by referring to the Auditor’s Report that the 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 6 of 11 
Auditor has framed the report only on the basis of the data furnished by the 
defendants and does not refer to IDC at all. Thus, the plaintiff’s contention 
that this Court ought to take cognizance of IDC data to direct defendants to 
make the pro-tem deposit is without any merit since Auditor’s Report is 
completely silent as regards any reference to the IDC. 
13. While referring to the Auditor Report and the argument of 
misrepresentation or willful concealment of facts as contended by the 
plaintiffs, he would invite attention to para 12 of the said report to dispel 
any such notion. He would submit that nowhere has the Auditor made any 
observation or allegation that the defendants have concealed any relevant 
figures muchless given any false representation at all. The only observation 
made by the Auditor in para 12 is restricted to not having adjusted (i) Debit 
Note Register; (ii) Freight Charges and (iii) Trade Discount and Rebate, 
while arriving at the sale amounts in the absence of split between Wi-Fi 6 
and non-Wi-Fi 6 devices. Learned senior counsel emphatically submitted 
that the detailed and separate figures for Wi-Fi 6 and non-Wi-Fi 6 devices 
in respect of the aforesaid three aspects could not be furnished by the 
defendants itself, on account of the fact that the trade discount and rebates 
would be offered at a later stage and would not be readily available as on 
the date of actual sales. He would submit that the devices which are 
transported in the containers are not item specific and therefore, the details 
as to whether the containers would contain either Wi-Fi 6 devices or 
otherwise could not be discerned even by the defendants. So far as trade 
discounts and rebates are concerned, he would submit that these are also 
calculable only after the credit period is over. Thus according to learned 
senior counsel, there is neither any misrepresentation nor fraud nor has the 
auditor made any such observation. 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 7 of 11 
14. Predicated on the above, learned senior counsel would contend that 
the claim of the plaintiff cannot be entertained. Additionally, he would 
submit that the deposit of pro-tem security is not a continuous process that 
every time the defendants would effect sales of Wi-Fi 6 compliant devices, 
the plaintiff would be entitled to further enhanced pro-tem security amount. 
15. As a conclusion, learned senior counsel would submit that in case 
this Court is inclined to direct any further deposit, the defendants are 
willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs without prejudice to their rights and 
contentions before this Court, as a final amount and close the application. 
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the 
relevant documents qua the present application, the following order is 
passed. 
17. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be appropriate to 
extract para 12 of the Auditor’s Report dated 14.05.2025: 
“Scope Limitations/ data not made available 
12. In the absence of split between Wi-Fi 6 and Non- WiFi 6 categories, the 
following have not been adjusted while arriving at the sale amounts: 
?hDebit Note Register 
?hFreight Charges 
?hTrade Discount & Rebate.” 
18. It is clear that the independent Auditor does not refer to any data of 
the IDC while making the calculations which were required of it as per 
order dated 16.04.2025. The Auditor appears to have submitted the report 
purely in terms of the documents provided by the defendant no.4 i.e. the 
Books of account and the CA Certificates furnished by the defendant no.4. 
Other than that there is no other document referred to in the said report 
dated 14.05.2025. Thus, at this stage, it may not be appropriate to refer to 
the IDC for the purposes of reckoning enhanced pro-tem security deposit, if 
any. Having said that, it is deemed appropriate to observe that if required, 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 8 of 11 
the examination of the IDC Report shall be considered at the appropriate 
stage, in accordance with law. 
19. So far as the allegation of the plaintiff that there has been a 
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the defendants stated to have been 
observed in the Auditor’s Report is concerned, after having perused the 
entire report such allegation is not discernible. No doubt, that in para 12, 
the Auditor has clearly stated that in the absence of split between Wi-Fi 6 
and non Wi-Fi 6 devices, the aspects like, (i) Debit Note Register; (ii) 
Freight Charges and (iii) Trade Discount and Rebate, have not been 
adjusted while arriving at the sale amounts, that by itself may not be 
construed or assessed at this stage, to be a misrepresentation. This is for the 
reason that as stated by Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel, the 
apportionment of the number of devices, whether WiFi 6 compliant or 
otherwise in a particular container may not be possible to arrive at, since 
the containers may contain many more such devices and equipment other 
than WiFi 6 devices. Additionally, the trade discount and rebate also may 
not be clearly apportioned between WiFi 6 and non-WiFi 6 compliant 
devices by the defendant no.4 and accordingly, the Auditor had expressed 
its helplessness to take into account the aforesaid aspects to make suitable 
adjustment by arriving at the sale amounts. Having said that, though this 
Court is of the, prima facie opinion that there does not appear to be a 
willful misrepresentation, however, would be impelled to leave this aspect 
to be examined and adjudicated at the proper stage during the trial. After 
all, the trial is yet to commence. This Court would also appreciate the order 
of the US Court at the relevant stage. 
20. To ascertain, as to what could be the enhanced pro-tem security 
amount which needs to be directed against the defendant no.4, it may be 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 9 of 11 
appropriate to consider the Auditor’s report and the table provided therein. 
The said table is reproduced hereunder: 
21. The Auditor after having examined the books of account and CA 
certificates for the FY 2018-19 to FY 2022-23 had also examined the 
documents relating to the period commencing from 01.04.2023 to 
31.12.2024. Since a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs had already been deposited as 
reckoned up to 23.08.2023, this Court would be concerned with the deposit, 
if any, for a period from 29.08.2023 to 31.12.2024 as agreed to by the 
defendants. 
22. From the data furnished by Defendant no.4 in terms of the CA 
certificates submitted, it is found that with effect from 2018-19 uptill 
28.08.2023, approximately 1,94,979 devices were sold on which Rs. 50 
lakhs have already been deposited by defendants. On and from 29.08.2023 
uptill 31.12.2024 approximately 2 lakh WiFi 6 compliant devices are 
declared to have been sold by the defendants. This Court has also perused 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 10 of 11 
order dated 13.10.2023, whereby this Court had reduced the quantum of 
deposit from USD 1 million to Rs. 50 lakhs. Though there is no clear 
determination in terms of actual calculations, it appears to this Court that 
on a sale of 1,94,977 devices, the Court had directed a deposit of 50 lakhs. 
Whether such calculation was made on the basis of what Mr. J. Sai Deepak, 
learned senior counsel had referred to as arising from the affidavit of 
plaintiffs German Counsel Mr. Yudell, or it was an abstract figure, is not 
clearly discernible. 
23. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel had attempted to give 
some semblance to such determination by reference to the running royalty 
per device at which is equivalent to as per the affidavit 
of Mr. Yudell and had arrived at a figure of approximately Rs.14 lakhs. He 
had however also stated on instructions that the defendant would deposit a 
sum of Rs.25 lakhs which is approximately Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.11 lakhs over 
and above the calculated sum. 
24. Though there may be some reference point to the attempted 
calculation made by learned senior counsel, however, this Court is of the 
considered opinion that the figure of Rs.50 lakhs was arrived at by this 
Court in the order dated 13.10.2023, ostensibly, based on the admitted sales 
of 1,94,977 devices. Therefore, having regard to the fact that from 
29.08.2023 to 31.12.2024 the defendant no.4 has declared to have sold 
approximately 2 lakh devices and is prepared to make a deposit thereon, it 
would be apposite and in the interest of justice as also to balance equity, to 
direct defendant no.4 to deposit the enhanced pro-tem security of Rs.50 
lakhs with this Court. It is made clear that this order would attach finality to 
the pro-tem security deposit issue. 
25. Accordingly, defendant no.4 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50 
lakh within a period of four weeks from date, in the name of the Registrar 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 Page 11 of 11 
General who shall invest the said amount in an interest bearing Fixed 
Deposit Receipt with auto renewable clause. 
26. In terms of the aforesaid, the application is disposed of. 
CS(COMM) 575/2023 
27. List before Court on 10.07.2026. 
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA 
(JUDGE) 
MARCH 10, 2026 
sumit