Supreme Court refuses CCI's plea to investigate patents case

The Supreme Court has refused a petition filed by Competition Commission of India against a Delhi High Court order which had put an end to its investigation into Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Monsanto Holding Private Limited.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta has dismissed an SLP filed by CCI while ordered that any questions of law involved in the litigation, would be kept open to be agitated in some other appropriate case.

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, keeping in mind what has been observed by the High Court in Paragraph 58 of its impugned judgment, referred to above and also taking into consideration the fact that the original complainants/informants have nothing further to say in the matter, we should not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court", the top court has ordered.

Advocate Samar Bansal appeared for the Competition Commission of India and on the other hand Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Navin Pahwa, Vibha Datta Makhija and C S Vaidyanathan appeared for the respective respondents.

Delhi High Court had said that the CCI‘s proceedings deserved to be quashed for want of power. "The Court is of the view that once a settlement has been reached between the informant and person against whom the information is filed, the very substratum of the proceedings by CCI is lost and the 2015 Judgement has rightly quashed the same. The question of liberties granted by the 2015 Judgement being sustainable do not arise, given as this Court has already held that CCI has no power to conduct the investigation that was impugned", the High Court had observed.

The question that arose before the Delhi High Court was that when a patent is issued in India, and the patentee asserts such rights, can the Competition Commission of India inquire into the actions of such patentee in exercise of its powers under the Competition Act, 2002.

Complaints were filed against Ericsson for imposing conditions for licensing certain standard essential patents (SEP) in the field of telecommunications that are not fair, reasonable or non discriminatory, and thus in violation of sections 3 and/or 4 of the Competition Act. The contention of the informants against Monsanto was, as with that against Ericsson that Monsanto is charging excessive royalties and not making its patents available reasonably, which is a violation of sections 3 and/or 4 of the Competition Act.

The contention of the patentees before the High Court, i.e., Ericsson and Monsanto was that the exercise of a patentee of their rights under the Patents Act cannot be overridden by the CCI under the Competition Act.

Drawing reference to section 62 of the Competition Act, CCI had contended before the High Court that it was not claiming exclusive power over issues concerning patents and their being worked. It also contended that the CCI is established to promote and sustain competition in markets to ensure economic development of the country, and it cannot be prevented from considering the question of whether the working of a patent will affect competition in the market.

High Court opined that the inquiry that the CCI proposed to conduct in respect of an assertion of patent rights is nearly identical to that which the Controller will conduct under Chapter XVI of the Patents Act. It further held that the Patents Act must necessarily prevail over the Competition Act and quashed the proceedings initiated by the CCI.

Case Title: COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA vs. MONSANTO HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Order Date: September 2, 2025

Bench: Justices Pardiwala and Mehta