According to the appellants, the invention was conceived after the inventor lost 152 mobile phones in a burglary in 2004. The technology was intended to help an owner locate and recover a stolen device without relying on law enforcement.
The appellants claimed that Xiaomi smartphones, tablets, laptops and other devices incorporating “Find Device” used essential elements of their patented technology.
The High Court, however, found an important functional difference between the two systems.
The patented system was designed to allow an authorised owner to continue locating, monitoring and remotely controlling a stolen phone even after attempts were made to disable its security features. One of its key elements was an “auto-answer mode” that could silently answer incoming calls without alerting the person possessing the phone.