In awarding such exemplary damages, the Court has upheld the legal validity of the suit Patent No. Therefore, in the absence of a dedicated provision allowing royalty rate to be employed as a deterrence mechanism, such an approach risks judicial overreach even if well-intentioned. A more doctrinally transparent approach would have been to award costs on an indemnity basis, while keeping the royalty rate anchored to the CommScope benchmark. Additional damages for wilful and flagrant infringement, and/or bad faith litigation to the tune of ₹B. Rosenberger infringed a valid patent, continued to litigate in bad faith, and therefore ought to pay substantially.