Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

CCI Lacks Jurisdiction Over Patent Holder’s Actions Under Patents Act: Delhi HC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2024 taxguru.in 4731
Case Name
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) Vs Competition Commission of India And Another (Delhi High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) Vs Competition Commission of India And Another (Delhi High Court)

In this legal battle, four appeals and a writ petition were at the heart of a crucial question: Does the Competition Commission of India (CCI) have the authority to investigate the actions of a patentee when a patent is granted in India and the patentee asserts their rights? Let’s break it down:

Background:

  • Ericsson, the Swedish multinational, filed two writ petitions—one against CCI and Micromax Informatics Limited, and another against Intex Technologies (India) Limited.
  • The CCI had initiated proceedings against Ericsson based on information filed by Micromax and Intex, alleging violations of sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act.
  • The central issue was whether the CCI could proceed against Ericsson for anti-competitive practices related to its patent rights.

The 2016 Judgment:

  • The Delhi High Court, in its 2016 judgment, held that the CCI’s jurisdiction to probe anti-competitive practices arising from patent rights couldn’t be nullified by the Patents Act, 1970.
  • Even though the Patents Act provided remedies (such as compulsory licenses), the CCI’s authority remained intact.
  • Essentially, the court emphasized that the Competition Act was a separate and complementary legislation, not overridden by the Patents Act.

The Court’s Decision:

  • Fast forward to the recent judgment: The Delhi High Court took a different stance.
  • It held that the Patents Act is the special statute, not the Competition Act.
  • Consequently, it set aside both the 2016 judgment and a subsequent 2020 judgment that relied on it.
  • The court quashed the CCI’s proceedings against Ericsson, affirming that the CCI lacks the power to investigate patent-related matters in this context.

Takeaway:

  • The CCI’s authority to scrutinize patentees’ actions has been clarified: It does not extend to matters governed by the Patents Act.
  • The court’s ruling emphasizes the distinct roles of the Competition Act and the Patents Act in India’s legal landscape.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,453

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.