TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON Vs CCI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: March 30, 2016)
Competition Act - Sections 2(f) & (h), 3(5), 4, 21A, 26(1), 27, 28, 36(2), 41(2), 42(2), 43, 48, 60, 61.
Patents Act - Sections 64, 83, 84(1)(b), 84(7), 90(1)(ix), 92 & 92A, 107, 140(1).
Sales of Goods Act - Section 2(7) & (11).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Article 102
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - Articles 8.2, 28, 31.
European Telecommunication Standard Institute (ETSI) Intellectual Property Rights Policy - Rule 6.
Keywords - Standard essential patents, SEPs, Standard Setting Organizations, SSOs, Fair reasonable and non discriminatory, FRAND, abuse of dominance, harmonious construction, jurisdiction.
Whether jurisdiction of the Commission to pass directions under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act for causing an investigation fall within the scope of judicial review under Article 226 - YES: HC
Whether there is any irreconcilable conflict between the Competition Act and the Patents Act when the patent laws define the contours of certain rights, and the anti-trust laws are essentially to prevent abuse of rights - NO: HC
Whether the intention of the Parliament is that both Competition Act and Patents Act should be worked and implemented in addition to and in not in derogation of other statues: YES: HC
Whether in absence of any irreconcilable conflict between the two legislations, the jurisdiction of CCI to entertain complaints for abuse of dominance in respect of Patent rights can be ousted - NO: HC
Whether as per proviso to Section 84(6)(iv) a patentee's anti-competitive conduct would have to be first established in proceedings under the Competition Act before the Controller of Patents could take that into account - NO: HC
Whether the Controller of Patents would be bound to take into account that the patent holder has indulged in anti-competitive practices, if the Commission has finally found a patentee's conduct to be anti-competitive and its finding has attained finality - YES: HC
Whether it amounts to abuse of dominance when a proprietor of SEPs is found pressuring an implementer to accept non FRAND terms - YES: HC
Whether an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act is not a cause that can be made a subject matter of a suit or proceedings before a civil court - NO: HC
Whether a potential licensee, could without prejudice to his rights to challenge the validity of patents could take such steps or proceedings which are premised on the patents being valid - YES: HC
Whether orders passed by the Commission are perverse and lacks jurisdiction, when there are reasons to have prima facie opinion indicating abuse of dominance by the patent holder - NO: HC
Writ petition dismissed
