Category Archives: Competition Law

Competition Law Drug Regulation

Poorly Drafted Regulatory Laws are Becoming the New Barrier for Indians to Access More Affordable Biotech Products


In highly regulated industries like pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, where all market players are required to prove the safety and efficacy of their products to government regulators, the lack of an efficient regulatory mechanism can act as a substantial hurdle to competition and greater accessibility. In such cases, poor regulation provides IP owners a window to further delay competition even after their patent rights expire. To facilitate better competition in these sectors, it is necessary for governments to create new regulatory…


Read More »
Competition Law Innovation Unfair Competition

Qualcomm under Fire: Korea FTC, US FTC, Class Action Suits, and Apple


  This (long) post is about Qualcomm.  Qualcomm has a business model that is based on IP, whether it is IP creation (SEP or manufacturing related) or IP licensing.  It has been the historical practice in the technology industry that licensing was, and per Qualcomm and related parties, still is, done on end value of device. Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Nokia are three top players in the SEP licensing domain and unsurprisingly hold similar views as their business model is SEP licensing….


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

IP vs Competition Law: Who Trumps Whom?


To say that IP vs Competition interface is a contested one is an understatement. Indeed, much ink has been spilt on resolving the apparent tension inherent within! And into this murky territory, I decided to wade right in…to commemorate what is known celebrated as the “World Competition Day”. I was requested to do a piece on this theme by CUTS, a leading think tank in India (and globally as well) on trade and competition policy. Apart from traversing the obvious…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

Samsung gets a favourable ruling v. Apple from the US Supreme Court


In a crisp 10 page unanimous opinion, the US Supreme Court overruled the (unanimous) Federal Circuit decision.   The US Supremes held that an “article of manufacture” need not be the end product as was claimed by Apple and agreed with Samsung that the article could be an intermediate product or a component !!! “The Federal Circuit’s narrower reading of ‘article of manufacture’ cannot be squared with the text of §289. The Federal Circuit found that components of the infringing smartphones…


Read More »
Competition Law Overlaps in IP Patent

My views on Session on ‘Open Standards’ in SpicyIP Consilience, 2016


 In the recently concluded SpicyIP Consilience 2016 Conference at NLS, we had an interesting session on Open Standards, FRAND and Royalty-Free models (pertaining to licensing of Standard Essential Patents). Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, Prof. Yogesh Pai, Mr. Navneet Hariharan and Prof. Natasha Nayak spoke in this session. The session discussed some interesting issues pertaining to: a) creation of value by royalty free standards; b) working of FRAND; c) creation of value by standards; and d) royalty-free model vis-a-vis FRAND model. If you…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Ericsson vs CCI- The Future of Indian SEP Disputes?-II


In this post, Swati continues her analysis of the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget lm Ericsson v Competition Commission of India W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014. Can the allegations made by Micromax and Intex be construed as abuse of dominance? Micromax and Intex, both claimed that exorbitant royalty rates and unfair licensing terms proposed by Ericsson amount to a patent holdup. Further, FRAND terms have been violated by Ericsson’s opaque licence negotiations and legal…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Ericsson vs CCI- The Future of Indian SEP Disputes?-I


In this post, Swati Muthukumar, our Spicy IP Fellowship applicant discusses the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget lm Ericsson v Competition Commission of India W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014. We have previously blogged about the recent Delhi High Court judgment, in which the court ordered the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) to continue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti-competitive practices. In this two part post, I will analyse the issues raised in the judgment…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part


On December 9, 2014 we had informed our readers that the Delhi High Court (DHC) had granted an interim injunction against Xiaomi.  The injunction was later modified by an order of the Division Bench of the DHC, and Xiaomi allowed to sell its devices subject to certain conditions.  The first post started with an editor’s note, which I find it useful to reproduce (just replace probably with almost certainly: “Due to the large number of queries around this – I would like…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Breaking News: Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay Anti-Competitive Investigation Against Ericsson


In a fairly exhaustive and well reasoned decision, Justice Vibhu Bakhru ordered today that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can continue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti competitive practices. This investigation pertains to the alleged abusive enforcement of Ericsson’s standard essential patents (SEP) against a host of Indian smartphone manufacturers, such as Micromax and Intex. Background As we’d noted in our previous posts on this issue, both Micromax and Intex had complained to the CCI that Ericsson was abusing its dominant…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Monsanto case: IP and Competition Law dimensions


My friend Prashant has recently written an excellent post in IPKat titled ‘A Monsanto case that could alter the dynamics of technology transfer to India’. The post is a good read.  I have decided to play the ‘devil’s advocate’ to some of the issues raised by Prashant. Basically, the idea is to present the other side of the coin and thereby, simplify the issues for the benefit of the readers. If this exercise is to deliver its intended result, reading…


Read More »