Case Study: Leveraging Patenti AI Engine for High-Stakes IP Valuation
- Jul 6
- 12 min read
Disclaimer: This Patent and Applicant are used solely for educational purposes to illustrate an IP Valuation as a legal case study. Patenti did not participate in this litigation. The purpose is to demonstrate how such an outcome could have been predicted or automated using Patenti's valuation engine.
Introduction
This case study models the valuation of a high-impact telecom infrastructure patent—Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency—currently undergoing litigation in India. While the case remains in progress, with the Delhi High Court having issued a ₹290 crore interim deposit order, no final judgment on infringement or damages has been delivered. This report leverages public data, valuation methodologies, and industry benchmarks to demonstrate how IP assessment tools like Patenti can simulate the range and structure of such court-aligned valuation outcomes in real time. It serves as an educational and modeling exercise—not a retrospective on concluded litigation.
Patent: "Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency" Patent Application: 1683/MUMNP/2008
Jurisdiction: India IPC Classification: H04Q7/36
Owner: TENXC Wireless Inc. Technology Domain: Wireless Communications, Antenna Beamforming
Patent document: 1683/MUMNP/2008
Outcome Highlights
Judicial Recognition: Delhi High Court ordered a historic ₹290 Cr interim security deposit in ongoing litigation based on the value of this patent. (Ref: LawStreet Article, 2024)
Valuation Accuracy (Modelled by Patenti): Using Patenti's internal valuation engine as a reasoning framework, an estimated IP value range of ₹735 Cr – ₹1,035 Cr was derived, which aligns with the plaintiff's full claim of ₹1,160 Cr. (Ref: Internal RfR + Deployment model, 2025)
Market Benchmark Support: Analysis mirrors case outcomes like Vringo ($50M) (source), Qualcomm China ($975M) (source), Optis Wireless (£219M) (source).
The Delhi High Court is set to begin day-to-day hearings from August(source). This scheduling underscores the active nature of the litigation, signaling potential rapid progression toward final arguments or judgment.
Disclaimer: This valuation assessment is an independent, model-based analysis conducted without access to the internal financial statements, balance sheets, or revenue disclosures of either the plaintiff or the defendant. All estimations are derived from public deployment data, industry benchmarks, judicial filings, and standard IP valuation methodologies. The figures presented are illustrative, not definitive, and intended solely to demonstrate how valuation logic may align with judicial trends.
About Patent
Invention Title: ASYMMETRICAL BEAMS FOR SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY
Publication Number: 39/2008
Publication Date: 26/09/2008
Publication Type: INA
Application Number: 1683/MUMNP/2008
Application Filing Date: 05/08/2008
Priority Number: Canada 2,540,218
Priority Country: Canada
Priority Date: 17/03/2006
Field Of Invention: COMMUNICATION
Classification (IPC): H04Q7/36
Inventors: Hafedh Trigui, Stuart J. Dean, John Litva
Applicant | |||
Name | Address | Country | Nationality |
TENXC WIRELESS INC. | 11 HINES ROAD, SUITE 200, OTTAWA; ONTARIO K2K 2X1, | Canada | Canada |
Invention Summary:
This patent discloses a method and system for configuring asymmetrical antenna beams in wireless networks to improve spectrum efficiency and sector coverage. Traditional antennas radiate symmetrical sectors (e.g., 120°), which may waste energy and create interference in underutilized directions.
The invention:
Creates asymmetric coverage patterns tailored to traffic density, terrain, or interference zones.
Reduces cross-sector interference and improves spectrum reuse.
Can be implemented using sector antennas and beam-shaping algorithms.
Use Case Relevance:
Directly applicable to 4G/5G base station antennas, especially in:
Urban/dense deployments (traffic-shaped cells)
Cost-optimized rural networks
Macro cell tri-sector configurations
Likely to be implemented by operators like Jio, Airtel, BSNL as part of smart cell planning and deployment.
SEP Assessment
While not officially essential, the technology may serve a de facto essential role in 4G/5G networks due to:
Broad deployment of sectorized/beamforming antennas
System-level impact on spectral efficiency and interference control
Illustrating the Valuation Logic Behind the Case
Standard IP Valuation Frameworks Applied
Valuation Method | Application in This Case |
1. Income Method | Forecast licensing royalty stream from Jio’s antenna-related revenue attributable to the patent |
2. Market Method | Compare with similar antenna patent deals or security orders (e.g., Ace Technologies: ₹290 Cr) |
3. Cost Method | Consider cost to design-around or replace patented beamforming functionality |
4. Relief-from-Royalty | Quantify damages by applying royalty to actual infringing revenues over the life of the patent |
5. Incremental Value | Value gained by Jio due to performance benefits of the patented antenna design |
6. Legal Damages Method | Combine reasonable royalty + willfulness enhancement + unjust enrichment |
We apply the Relief-from-Royalty (RfR) methodology to quantify damages based on actual infringing revenue from telecom infrastructure deployed between 2016 and 2025. This approach assumes:
The patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed.
Royalty is applied to the attributed revenue portion generated by infringing use.
Why 2016? — 2016 marks the onset of large-scale 4G rollout in India (e.g., Jio's commercial launch). It aligns with when smart, sectorized, and beamforming-enabled antennas were deployed at scale—making infringement both probable and economically measurable. The patent had already been filed and enforceable by this time.
Step 1. Relief-from-Royalty Modeling:
Why valuation begins in 2016: This year marks the onset of large-scale 4G rollout in India (e.g., Jio's commercial launch). It aligns with when smart, sectorized, and beamforming-enabled antennas were deployed at scale—making infringement both probable and economically measurable. The patent had already been filed and enforceable by this time.
Formulae Used:
Attributed Revenue per Unit = Unit Price × Patent Contribution Share
Total Attributed Revenue = Attributed Revenue per Unit × Units Deployed
Royalty Value = Total Attributed Revenue × Royalty Rate
NPV Adjustment (if applicable) = Present value of expected future royalty stream over infringement period (3–10 years) using a 10–12% discount rate
Valuation Table: | Value / Assumption |
Units deployed | ~1,000,000 antennas (TRAI/DoT) |
Average unit system price | ₹1,00,000 |
Patent-attributed value share | 20% (₹20,000 per antenna) |
Total attributed revenue | ₹2,000 Cr (20,000 × 1,000,000) |
Applied royalty rate | 3% – 5% (based on Ocean Tomo / LES India) |
Royalty value (undiscounted) | ₹60 Cr – ₹100 Cr |
Adjusted NPV (2016–2025) | ₹87 Cr – ₹145 Cr |
Adjusted NPV (2025–2028) | ₹50 Cr – ₹84 Cr |
Step 2. Willfulness Enhancer Calculation
Formula Used:
Enhanced Damages = Base Royalty Damages × Willfulness Multiplier (2×–3×)
This multiplier reflects judicial discretion in India when infringement is found to be deliberate or continued despite notice.
Calculation Table:
Factor | Applied Basis |
Royalty Base (from RfR) | ₹87 Cr – ₹145 Cr |
Willfulness Multiplier | 2x – 3x (Indian judicial discretion) |
Adjusted Damages Range | ₹174 Cr – ₹435 Cr |
Summary of Independent Valuation Results
Method | INR (Cr) | Scope |
Relief-from-Royalty (2025–2028) | ₹50 – ₹84 | Remaining patent life |
Relief-from-Royalty (2016–2025) | ₹87 – ₹145 | Past unlicensed use |
Willful Infringement Multiplier | ₹174 – ₹435 | Standard 2× to 3× |
Economic Value Created (CAPEX/Spectrum Savings) | ₹300 – ₹600 | Network-wide gain |
Reasonable Aggregate Valuation | ₹735 – ₹1,035 | Total modeled impact |
The ₹1,160 crore claim lies well within the upper bound of these ranges and is justified under Indian and global IP valuation norms.
Step 3. Deployment Impact Modeling
Formulae Used:
Efficiency Gain per Unit = Estimated CAPEX/OPEX savings per beamforming-enabled antenna (₹30K–₹50K)
Total Impact = Efficiency Gain × Total Units Deployed
This estimates real-world infrastructure value created by using the patented feature without needing equivalent alternatives.
Impact Table:
Component | Chosen Value | Why |
Sites Enabled | ~750,000 | |
Beamform-enabled units | ~1,000,000 antennas | Assuming tri-sector deployment (3 antennas per site), filtered to ~40–50% relevance for beamforming functions based on urban/active site logic |
Efficiency Gain per Site | ₹30,000 – ₹50,000 | Conservative estimate for savings from beam shaping (spectrum reuse, fewer towers, energy savings); based on GSMA deployment models and CAPEX benchmarks for beam-control systems |
Total Value | ₹300 Cr – ₹600 Cr | Computed as: 1,000,000 antennas × ₹30,000–₹50,000 = ₹300 Cr – ₹500 Cr
Rounded upward slightly to account for macro-level strategic gains (e.g., delayed spectrum acquisition, urban densification offsets) |
Rationale for 750K as a minimum viable commercial footprint:
· Jio, Airtel, and BSNL together have deployed over 750,000 cellular sites in India by 2024 (source: TRAI, DoT).
· Most of these sites are tri-sector, meaning each site typically uses 3 directional antennas.
· However, not all antennas at every site may use the patented asymmetrical beamforming technology.
Metric | Estimate |
Total 4G/5G Sites | ~750,000 |
Avg. Antennas per Site | 2–3 (typical) |
Estimated Total Antennas | 1.5–2 million |
Likely Beam-Optimized | 25% – 50% (~500K–1M) |
Step 4. Precedent Alignment
Legal and Commercial Precedents include the following
Case/Company | Outcome/Claim Value | Relevance |
Vringo vs. ZTE (India + Global) | $50M+ awarded | SEP antenna technology; damages awarded for network-level use |
Optis Wireless vs. Apple (UK) | £219M ($300M) FRAND ruling | Benchmark for wireless royalty claims |
Qualcomm licensing (China, EU) | $975M settlement | Upheld royalty claims on RF patents |
Nokia vs. Vivo (India, 2022) | ₹200+ Cr sought for LTE patents | Shows telco IP licensing scale in India |
Competitors Using Similar IP Scope
Company | Tech Segment | Patent Position |
Ericsson | Massive MIMO, beamforming | SEP + licensed antenna portfolios |
Huawei | Active antenna systems | Patented beamforming layers |
Nokia | Sectorized beam optimization | Commercialized in 5G RANs |
CommScope | Beam control + hardware | IP-backed deployments worldwide |
Jio (Reliance) | Tri-sector rollout, 750K+ sites | Implicated in current infringement scope |
Conclusion
Here is a concise summary of the IP Valuation across all methodologies used in the case study, along with the estimated ranges and what each captures:
Methodology | Purpose | Estimated Value | Captures |
Income-Based (RfR) | Models forgone licensing revenue | ₹87 Cr – ₹145 Cr (past) | |
₹50 Cr – ₹84 Cr (future) | Past/future royalty over 12 years (2016–2028), 3–5% rate | ||
Cost-Based | Estimates design-around or workaround cost | ₹1.25 Cr – ₹2.25 Cr | Redesign effort, delay, testing cost |
Market-Based | Benchmarks similar patent licenses or sales | ₹2.4 Cr – ₹4 Cr (license) | |
₹1.5 Cr – ₹3 Cr (sale) | Licensing deals or asset sales in non-SEP wireless | ||
Strategic Value | Measures economic benefit created by the patent | ₹225 Cr – ₹375 Cr | Cost savings from deployment (CAPEX, spectrum, energy) |
Legal Damages | Projects damages with willfulness enhancement | ₹174 Cr – ₹435 Cr | 2–3× multiplier of income-based base royalties |
Aggregate Insight:
Total Economic Value (across models, not additive): Conservatively anchored around ₹735 Cr – ₹1,035 Cr
Litigation-backed Claim Supported: ₹1,160 Cr sought in court, aligns with upper strategic and legal valuation layers
Court Confidence Alignment: Patenti's internal valuation logic arrives at outcomes that align closely with a ₹290 Cr deposit (25% of ₹1,160 Cr claim).
Transparency: Table-driven breakdowns protect against speculative claims.
Real-World Defensibility: Reflects actual market activity and infrastructure footprint.
Ace Technologies Corp is a South Korean telecom hardware company, founded in 1980, specializing in RF equipment, including LTE/5G base-station antennas, filters, and related systems. Ace Technologies is not just a distant foreign supplier—but a company with local R&D, manufacturing footprint, and direct deployment relationships in India. This local engagement strengthens the basis for Revenue-Attribution models and substantiates the ₹290 Cr interim security order.
Valuation Statement: “Using a Relief-from-Royalty model with industry-standard inputs and judicially recognized willfulness multipliers, the asserted claim of ₹1,160 crore falls within a reasoned valuation band of ₹735 – ₹1,035 crore. The Delhi High Court's order of a ₹290 crore interim deposit further confirms judicial alignment with this economic basis.”
Appendix
Appendix A: Valuation Summary by Methodology
A. Income-Based (Relief-from-Royalty)
Component | Description |
Formula | Revenue × Patent Contribution × Royalty Rate |
Explanation | Portion of infringer's revenue attributable to patented feature is isolated, and a royalty rate is applied. |
Assumptions | 1M units × ₹20K/unit × 3–5% royalty |
Estimated Value | ₹87 – ₹145 Cr (past), ₹50 – ₹84 Cr (future, discounted) |
Sources | Ocean Tomo Royalty Report (2017), TRAI infrastructure data, LES India licensing data |
B. Cost-Based (Design-Around)
Estimated R&D/design-around for replacing core beamforming innovation:
Engineering, validation, and testing: ₹75 lakh – ₹1.25 crore
Delay penalty in deployment: ₹50 lakh – ₹1 crore per OEM
Design-around Avoidance Value: ₹1.25 – ₹2.25 crore
Component | Description |
Formula | Redesign cost + delay penalty × risk factor |
Explanation | Estimates what infringer would pay to legally work around the patent via new R&D and testing. |
Assumptions | 18–24 months redesign, risk-adjusted engineering cost |
Estimated Value | ₹1.25 – ₹2.25 Cr |
Sources | LES India case studies, publicly disclosed design-around examples from court judgments, Harvard Berkman IP litigation archives |
C. Market-Based
Component | Description |
Formula | License value = Avg. deal × term/license volume |
Explanation | Uses real-world licensing and sale transactions to benchmark the IP's market value. |
Assumptions | ₹3–5 lakh/year/license × 10 licensees × 8 years |
Estimated Value | ₹2.4 – ₹4 Cr (licensing), ₹1.5 – ₹3 Cr (sale) |
Sources |
D. Strategic Value Method
Component | Description |
Formula | Infra Sites × Value per Site (enabled by patent) |
Explanation | Calculates how much cost saving or performance boost the patent creates across deployment. |
Assumptions | 750K sites × ₹30K–₹50K = ₹225–₹375 Cr |
Estimated Value | ₹225 – ₹375 Cr |
Sources | GSMA ROI Framework, Jio and Airtel deployment reports, TRAI tower data |
E. Legal Damages Method (Judicial)
Component | Description |
Formula | Base Royalty × Willfulness Multiplier (2x–3x) |
Explanation | Courts may multiply base damages where willful infringement is proven. |
Assumptions | ₹87 – ₹145 Cr × 2–3 multiplier |
Estimated Value | ₹174 Cr – ₹435 Cr |
Sources | Indian Patent Act Sec. 108(2), Delhi HC interim rulings, UK IP case database |
Additional Enhancements That Strengthen IP Valuation
1. Significance of Balance Sheet & Financial Context
The financial profile of the accused party—or potential licensee—can materially reinforce a patent’s commercial valuation. Courts and investors consider:
Ability to Pay: A strong balance sheet (cash flow, profit margins) supports feasibility of licensing or damages.
Segment-level Revenue Data: Helps correlate patented features to product-level revenues (critical in RfR).
Prejudgment Confidence: Courts often award interim security based on known financial solvency.
Court's Interim Judgement on July 1, 2025 has used revenue generated by defendant on Page 22 to award interim security.(source)
2. Patent Family Strength
Valuation increases if the subject patent is part of a broader, internationally filed or continuation-based family:
Multiple Jurisdictions: Increases enforceability and global licensing potential.
FTO/Blocking Risk: Broader families deter competitors or justify higher design-around cost.
Past Licensing History: Family members that have been licensed or litigated increase predictability of value.
Forward Citations: Suggest downstream commercial relevance.
Together, these dimensions provide legal, commercial, and enforcement confidence to valuation stakeholders.
Appendix B : Analog Success Stories — Global IP Valuation Benchmarks
These examples demonstrate how courts and companies have recognized and compensated significant IP related to telecommunications and wireless infrastructure. They serve as reference points to validate the modeling logic used in this retrospective case study.
Case / Entity | Jurisdiction | Technology Area | Outcome / Award | Source / Link |
Vringo vs. ZTE | Global (incl. India) | Wireless infrastructure | ~$50M damages awarded | |
Qualcomm vs. NDRC (China) | China | Mobile baseband + licensing | $975M settlement + licensing | |
Optis Wireless vs. Apple | UK | 4G/5G standard-essential patents | £219M FRAND damages | |
Ericsson vs. Micromax | India | Wireless SEPs (2G–3G) | Settled licensing w/ NDAs | Public reporting |
CSIRO vs. Cisco | US | Wi-Fi MIMO patents | ~$229M jury verdict (settled) | Court filings |
These analogs provide legal, commercial, and geographic diversity to benchmark damages, licensing range, and judicial behavior in valuing telecommunications IP.
Appendix C: SEP Status Assessment
This patent is not a declared Standard Essential Patent (SEP) based on review of major public databases:
Assessment Area | Result | Evidence |
Declared to 3GPP/ETSI | Not listed | Checked ETSI IPR Database and 3GPP TS series |
Mentioned in standard specs | Not cited | Not found in 3GPP specs like TS 36.104 or TS 38.104 |
Classified in SEP-heavy IPC (e.g., H04B) | No | IPC H04Q7/36 is not inherently essential-category |
Registered in SEP pools (Avanci, Via, etc.) | No | Patent not found in FRAND SEP pool records |
While not officially essential, the technology may serve a de facto essential role in 4G/5G networks due to:
Broad deployment of sectorized/beamforming antennas
System-level impact on spectral efficiency and interference control
Impact of Non-SEP Status on Valuation
Affected Area | Impact of Non-SEP Status |
Royalty Rate (RfR) | FRAND restrictions do not apply → 3–5% royalty justified (not capped at SEP norms) |
Market-Based Comparables | SEP-linked deals not directly comparable → use general infrastructure IP deals instead |
Legal Damages | Can pursue full damages including willfulness → no FRAND constraints |
Strategic Value | Still high due to real-world use → impact modeling remains valid |
Licensing Flexibility | More flexible negotiation (non-SEP IP not subject to standard body licensing duties) |
These factors reinforce that while the patent isn’t declared essential, its deployment impact justifies strong valuation using RfR, Strategic, and Legal methods without SEP limitations.
Appendix E: How TRL 9 Boosts Valuation Accuracy
Valuation Area | Impact of High TRL (8–9) |
Income-Based (RfR) | Higher confidence in royalty rate (3–5%) due to proven deployment and commercial use |
Cost-Based | Higher design-around cost due to complexity and field maturity |
Market-Based | Real-world license benchmarks are available; more comparable case analogs |
Strategic Value | Field-level efficiencies (CAPEX, power, spectrum) are measurable and verifiable |
Legal Damages | Courts favor higher awards when infringement involves field-deployed, mature technology |
Discount Rate (NPV) | Lower risk → lower discount rate → higher present value |
Glossary
Term / Method | Definition |
Relief-from-Royalty (RfR) | A standard income-based method that estimates the royalty the patent owner is relieved from paying by owning the IP. Often used to quantify damages or forecast licensing income. Source |
Cost-Based (Design-Around) | Values the IP by estimating what it would cost to invent around or replace the patented invention through new R&D, delay, and risk. Source |
Market-Based | Compares the IP to similar publicly known transactions, license deals, or asset sales to infer a reasonable market value. Source |
Strategic Value | Estimates economic value created by using the patent (e.g., network performance gains or infrastructure savings). Not legal damages, but real-world impact. Source |
Legal Damages (Judicial Multiplier) | Based on base royalty damages multiplied by a factor (e.g., 2–3×) if willful infringement is shown. Reflects court rulings rather than technical valuation. Source |
Willfulness Multiplier | A factor used in IP litigation to enhance damages when the infringer knowingly or recklessly violated patent rights. |
NPV (Net Present Value) | A finance concept used to discount future cash flows to present-day value using a specified interest rate. |
About Patenti
Patenti is an AI-powered IP valuation assessment platform that:
Automates multi-method IP valuation (RfR, Market, Cost, Strategic, Legal)
Translates complex patents into monetizable asset profiles
Models royalties, damages, and infringement value using judicially consistent frameworks
Supports monetization forecasting for litigation, licensing, FTO, and strategic IP planning — without executing commercialization itself
This retrospective model illustrates how Patenti’s framework could simulate valuation outcomes that aligned with the ₹290 Cr court deposit — without implying active involvement.
Want to test Patenti on your own patent? Contact us at info@patentitech.com to simulate valuation, damages, or licensing projections.
Source List
Legal and Case Sources
Technical & Telecom Deployment
Valuation Methodologies
Analog Case Benchmarks