Whose Jurisdiction is it Anyway?: SC Dismisses CCI’s Appeal Against Ouster of Jurisdiction on Patent Issues
SpicyIP
Whose Jurisdiction is it Anyway?: SC Dismisses CCI’s Appeal Against Ouster of Jurisdiction on Patent Issues
By Ambika Aggarwal
After a 12 year-long battle for jurisdictional certainty, the CCI seems to have lost. For the amount of attention that had been placed on the Supreme Court to resolve inter-sectoral jurisdictional overlaps, the decision of the Apex Court is rather anticlimactic. It also seems to have added more issues to the already convoluted question of parallel jurisdictions.
In the case of Ericsson v. CCI a division bench of the Delhi High Court had extinguished the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from any matter where the litigant was functioning in its capacity as a patentee and relegated all matters of patent enforcement to the sole supervision of the Controller General. Ericsson and Monsanto who had argued, and the Court agreed, that the Patent Act, 1970 was lex specialis and superseded the application of the Competition Act, 2002. Antitrust proceedings against Ericsson on allegations of abuse of its SEP portfolio and Monsanto for charging excessive royalties were quashed. The matter was subsequently appealed by the CCI to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the CCI’s SLP on September 2, 2025 (SLP 25026/2023.). According to my sources, this is presumably because of a settlement between the patent holder and the complainant. This follows in practice the JCB case where after the CCI had found JCB guilty of unfair restriction of market access of competing products. The SC had ordered a mediation that resulted in a successful out-of-court settlement. A division bench of the Delhi High Court had then held that the CCI could not continue with its investigation on abuse of dominance in the event of a private settlement between the disputing parties. At the time of this decision, it was noted that halting CCI investigations on the basis of in-personam settlements contradicts with the in-rem remedial decisions of the antitrust authority. Now with the dismissal of CCI’s SLP, it seems like the Apex Court is also in favour of placing voluntary settlements out of the reach of antitrust scrutiny.
We have also been told that the question of law on the ouster of CCI’s jurisdiction has been left open for determination if it arises in a dispute in the future. This question is particularly important in the context of India’s developing SEP jurisprudence, and also for the on-going confusion on sectoral division of power discussed in earlier cases of Coal India and Bharti Airtel. The Supreme Court had held that sectoral regulators, here the Controller of Coal and TRAI, will exercise jurisdiction along with the CCI. The sectoral regulators will have primacy in determining questions of technicalities after which the CCI may investigate for anti-competitive harm. For patent enforcement, it remains unclear how this kind of inter-sectoral communication will play out. The implications this decision may have for SEP litigations are the lack of choice of forum for litigants. Globally, it is an accepted practice for antitrust agencies to deliberate on SEP licensing issues. In the past, they have served as a venue to level the playing field between SEP holders and implementers.
There were expectations from the Supreme Court to clear regulatory confusion, but the Court not wanting to decide on the question of law, adds to the chaos. The efficacy of removing the jurisdiction of the CCI following private settlements was already an openly debated question after the JCB ruling. While in theory the question of law is still open, it is hard to say how this can be used in practice. In consequence of this order, it is not certain if the CCI can meaningfully intervene at all. Assuming that the CCI investigates on complaint, the Delhi court will most likely maintain its former stand. Until then, there is a fair chance that the courts of law might end up being the only viable venue for dispute resolution, even when the dispute has clear antitrust elements. All the power falls on the court to decide the bounds of jurisdiction, yet again. We wait for the court order to be made public.