Category Archives: Unfair Competition

Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

Apple v. Nokia – patent privateering – Will the CCI take suo moto notice?


Last month, Apple and Nokia announced that they were settling all pending litigation with each other. In a statement available on Apple’s website, Nokia stated, “This is a meaningful agreement between Nokia and Apple,” Maria Varsellona, Chief Legal Officer, Nokia.  It moves our relationship with Apple from being adversaries in court to business partners working for the benefit of our customers.” Apple filed the first complaint against several entities, all of whom had purchased SEPs from Nokia / or were…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

A Critique of the Decision in Unwired Planet v. Huawei


On April 5, 2017, the UK High Court of Justice (Patents), Mr. Justice Colin Birss issued a detailed opinion [Unwired Planet v. Huawei ([2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 5 Apr. 2017] in a matter involving SEPs and FRAND.  The Unwired Planet v. Huawei (hereafter “Unwired”) decision is extremely contentious and this posts covers only the issues that I believe need further consideration. Disclaimer: I advise several clients in matters involving SEPs and FRAND.  These are my views only. Long post follows. Background:…


Read More »
Copyright Unfair Competition

Delhi High Court Rules on the Jurisdiction of the ASCI; Holds that It Can Adjudicate upon Claim of Infringement and Passing Off


In a very interesting judgment delivered earlier this month, the Delhi High Court ruled on the jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) to adjudicate upon complaints relating to copyright infringement in advertisements (for those interested, we have previously blogged about the ASCI’s powers and functions in a post which can be found here). Holding that the existence of provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trademark Act, 1999 exclusively empowering the district court to adjudicate upon…


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 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 Patent Unfair Competition

Guest Post: The Rs. 400 crore war between Monsanto and Indian seed companies with threats of price control and compulsory licencing of patents


What role could the competition and IPR frameworks play in a dispute between Monsanto and Indian cotton seed manufacturers? Prashant Reddy weighs in on the question of the extent to which private contract disputes can be interfered with by State regulation. (Long post ahead) The Rs. 400 crore war between Monsanto and Indian seed companies with threats of price control and compulsory licensing of patents Author: Prashant Reddy There is a storm brewing over foreign IP rights in India and,…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

iBall v. Ericsson: CCI Continues to Toe the Line Amidst Judicial Ambiguity


In yet another Order where the CCI continues to be insistent on exercising jurisdiction in SEP matters, the Commission, proceeding from a complaint by iBall, directed the DG to complete an investigation against Ericsson. This adds to jurisprudence that shows the CCI as being adamant to exercise jurisdiction in matters where there is genuine confusion as to its reach. In 2011, Ericsson issued a letter to iBall making clear its belief that its patents, which were directly relevant to iBall’s…


Read More »
Patent Unfair Competition

The Extra-Territorial Reach of (SE)Patents?  The case against SEP portfolio licensing


One of the first things that law students are taught is that among the various rights granted by a sovereign, patents too are territorial in nature.  Simply put, patents granted by India are valid in India, and not valid in United States (US) or Pakistan, etc. and vice versa. Existing scholarship including case law in the US, focuses on the outbound impact of intellectual property rights (IPR), with patent laws being the focus of attention.  See, for example, US 35…


Read More »
Patent Unfair Competition

Breaking News!! DHC fixes interim royalty rates, last date of trial in Ericsson/Micromax FRAND case


A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed a judgment on the interim applications pending in the patent infringement suit filed by Ericsson (Telefonaktienolaget LM Ericsson) against Micromax and Mercury Electronics on the 12th of November, 2014. The judgment covers two main points: first, it sets the royalty rate to be paid during the pendency of the case [brings it down from 1.25-2% to 0.8-1.3%], and, secondly, it fixes 31st December as the final date for the trial of the…


Read More »
Copyright Unfair Competition

T-Series Faces the Music on its Minimum Commitment Charges


The CCI in a recent decision ruled that Minimum Commitment (“MC”) charges imposed by T-Series on Radio Stations were unfair and discriminatory and imposed a penalty of Rs 28.3 million on T-Series. These MC charges were charges equivalent to fixed number of radio hours that stations had to pay T-Series irrespective of whether or not they played their music. The rationale that T-Series had advanced before the commission was that radio stations had to pay charges for a fixed number…


Read More »