•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Law firms & seniors galore, as Delhi HC allows anti-competition patents probe vs Ericsson for Micromax [READ JUDGMENT]

Ericsson: Holds a lot of old patents...
Ericsson: Holds a lot of old patents...

Saikrishna & Associates won today for Micromax in the Delhihigh court against Ericsson, which had challenged the validity of a CCIinvestigation into its grant of patents contemporaneously with otherlegal challenges against it.

In a fairly exhaustive and well reasoned decision, Justice VibhuBakhru just ordered that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) cancontinue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti competitivepractices in relation to the enforcement of its standard essentialpatents (SEP) against a host of Indian smartphone manufacturers, such asMicromax and Intex.


Spicy IP, which has an analysis of the judgment:

Justice Bakhru’s decision seems quite well reasoned on a quickreading. The judge clearly spells out that unlike civil law suits, acompetition commission investigation and finding is not in the nature ofa “lis” between parties. And therefore the presence of various law suitsbetween Ericsson and Micromax/Intex do not preclude the jurisdiction ofthe CCI

Further he also holds that Ericsson appears to be in dominant positionand there is no reason for the CCI to not conduct an investigation intoalleged anti-competitive practices (for the purpose of determiningjurisdiction, one has to assume that the allegations made by Micromaxand Intex are true). Mere provisions for compulsory licensing etc underthe patents act does not oust the jurisdiction of the the CCI (see paras179 onwards for key/critical parts of decision).

Ericsson was represented by senior advocates CS Vaidyanathan and_Pratibha Singh_, as well as Singh & Singh Lall & Sethi co-foundingpartner Chander Lall and P&A Law Offices managing partner Anand Pathak and Economic Laws Practice (ELP) partners Suhail Nathani and Ravisekhar Nair.

Senior advocate AN Haksar represented the CCI, with advocate AdityaNarain acting as amicus curiae.

Micromax, which opposed Ericsson in this case, was represented by_Saikrishna & Associates_.

Intex, which had also been opposing Ericsson, was represented by Gaggar & Associates and advocate Arun Kathpalia.

Updated story with ELP and Gaggar & Associates roles.

html Delhi HC Ericsson vs CCI

Picture byChristos Vittoratos

Click to show 7 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.