Category Archives: Competition Law

Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

US Court Grants Federal Trade Commissions Motion: Qualcomm Must License Any Willing Company, Including Rival Chip Makers


This is a monumental development: Judge Lucy H. Koh of the  Northern District of California has held that Qualcomm must license any willing licensee – this includes rival chipmakers, such as MediaTek or Intel or any other player.  This is huge: Qualcomm admittedly had never licensed any of its competitors.   Hence the decision may be read to hold that Qualcomm is in breach of its FRAND commitments. In my view, this judgement is also valuable from another perspective: Whether chipsets can…


Read More »
Competition Law Drug Regulation Privacy

All You Need to Know About the New CCI Policy on Healthcare-Part II


I had written a post few days ago covering the main highlights of the CCI’s press release on its Policy Note on healthcare. In my post, I had summarized and explained the main aspects of the Note (covered by the press release) and observed that though the Policy Note doesn’t really bring in many new recommendations, it does pay heed to the current shift from price control mechanisms to rationalisation of trade margins. With the recent release of the Policy…


Read More »
Competition Law Drug Regulation

All You Need to Know About the New CCI Policy on Healthcare-Part I


It’s been around a week since the CCI released its press release on its policy note on ‘Making Markets Work for Affordable Healthcare’. In the past, the CCI has recognized the need to address issues in the healthcare industry on several occasions. For instance, it has observed in a past order that the lack of competitive forces in the pharmaceutical market has resulted in “innovative business practices, superior services, consumer choice, lower prices, etc.” taking a back seat. (In fact,…


Read More »
Competition Law

Star India and Sony in Troubled Waters over CCI Order


[Warning: Long post follows!] The CCI, in a recent order dated 27th July, 2018, passed under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”), instructed the Director General to investigate claims of price discrimination made by the Informant, Noida Software Technology Park Limited (“NSTPL”) against Star India Pvt. Ltd. (“Star India”), Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. (“Sony”) and Indian Broadcasting Foundation (“IBF”). Factual Overview NSTPL is a distributor of TV content and it uses the new Head-end in…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Determination of FRAND royalty – TCL v. Ericsson LM


In my first posts in 2017, I had discussed various FRAND / SEP issues that were raised in the Qualcomm matters in Korea, and the US.  I end the year with a similar post on FRAND issues.  Together these decisions bring clarity to what is FRAND and hopefully will help the Indian brands as well in their litigation against SEP owners.  This post arises from the determination of FRAND rates in TCL Mobile Limited, and TCT Mobile v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Case…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – III


[*Long post] Earlier posts – Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – I & Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – II [Continuing…..] Delhi HC judgment on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India and Anr Issues Is there an irreconcilable conflict between the Competition Act and Patents Act? and Is it possible to construe both the Acts harmoniously? Judgment  An inconsistency or repugnancy in statutes cannot be readily inferred and any interpretation that leads to such conflict must, as…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – II


[*Long post] I shall be dealing with the Delhi HC judgment on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India and Anr, limited to the issue of Competition Act versus Patents Act. The idea is to simplify the judgment for the benefit of readers and present views where applicable. This is strictly an academic exercise. I shall not be dealing with the facts and other issues since the mandate is limited here. SpicyIP had already dealt with this judgment before….


Read More »
Competition Law

Thoughts on Regulatory Tussles Involving CCI – I


Introduction The world does not need any more lessons on the need for a “regulated” market so as to preclude market failures. At the same time, it is imperative to design a regulatory framework with minimum frictions amongst the regulators themselves. Having set the context, I intend to pen down my thoughts on regulatory tussles involving Competition Commission of India (CCI). In subsequent posts, I shall critically examine the Delhi High Court judgment in 2016 (Ericsson case) which dealt with…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

TRAI Invites Comments on Patents Act, FRAND | Views on Inter Agency Co-Operation


Last week, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued a consultation paper on promoting local telecom equipment manufacturing in India and invited comments from readers.  I believe that this is a great opportunity for all stakeholders to provide their comments to the TRAI.  The paper may be downloaded from here or by going to the TRAI site and then at publications / consultation papers. The deadline for submitting comments is 16.OCT.2017 and may be emailed to arvind[AT]trai{dot}gov{dot}in and bharatgupta{dot}[email protected]{dot}com…


Read More »
Competition Law

Competition Commission of India (or Delhi?) Seeks to Outsource Study on Healthcare Industry to Medical Professionals, Radiologists, Pharma Graduates etc.


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) recently floated a ‘Request for Proposal’ (RFP) for an agency to conduct the following study: “Situation Analysis to understand the prescription and referral pattern of Hospitals and Medical Practitioners and also the tie-ups and networking amongst various stakeholders in Health Care Sector”. The study intends to focus on different hospitals, clinics, diagnostic centres, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists, insurance companies, third party administrators, patients, care-givers, doctors etc. and cover the following specializations: cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, ophthalmology,…


Read More »