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
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: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,725

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