Supreme Court dismisses CCI's plea against Delhi High Court order in patents case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 2 September, dismissed the antitrust regulator Competition Commission of India's (CCI) appeal against a Delhi High Court order related to the patents of telecom major Ericsson and agrichemical giant Monsanto, reported the news portal LiveLaw. 

According to the news portal's report, the high court passed an order in favour of Ericsson and Monsanto, directing that the CCI cannot carry on its investigations based on the complaints of the agency's various informants.

In the CCI vs. Ericsson and Monsanto case, the companies appealed to the high court, stating that the CCI allegedly does not have any legal jurisdiction to inquire about the business licensing of patents and the abuse of power by the patent holder.

The high court quashed the CCI proceedings and investigations into the companies Ericsson and Monsanto, citing the jurisdiction clause. 

Why did Supreme Court dismiss CCI's appeal?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the special leave petition on account of the high court's observations in the judgment and said that once a settlement has been reached between the informant and the person against whom the information has been filed, the basis of investigation is lost in the matter, reported the news portal.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the appeal on Tuesday, supporting the high court order, which ruled that the Patents Act 1970 of India prevails over the Competition Act 2002 when it comes to the rights of the patentee, according to the news portal's report.

“Taking into consideration the HC's observations and the fact that the original informants have nothing further to say in view of the settlement arrived at, we do not interfere with the impugned judgement,” according to the Supreme Court order cited in the news portal's report.

The apex court also directed that if there are more questions of law involved in this case, then those are to be kept open to be agitated in any other appropriate proceedings.

“If there are any questions of law involved in this litigation, the same are kept open to be agitated in any other appropriate proceedings,” the bench said.