This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2022 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 1: Role of the Judiciary in Promoting Balanced and Effective IP, Innovation and Creative Ecosystems
High Court of Delhi, India [2015]: Vifor International Ltd. v Competition Commission of India, W.P.(C) 11263/2022
Date of judgment: July 28, 2022
Issuing authority: High Court of Delhi
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate instance
Subject matter: Competition, Patents
Plaintiff: Vifor International Ltd. (petitioner)
Defendant: Competition Commission of India (respondent)
Keywords: Interplay between patent law and competition law, jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India
Basic facts: The Petitioner, Vifor International Ltd (Vifor), holds a patent for a drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose (“FCM”). Following information submitted by an informant alleging that Vifor was adopting anti-competitive practices, namely by engaging in discriminatory pricing with the drug being offered at a higher price to individual consumers than to public procurers, the Respondent, Competition Commission of India (the Commission), called upon the Petitioner to submit details on: the FCM patent; manufacturing and import licenses issued in India for FCM; whether the Petitioner was approached by any company for any FCM license in India; and whether the Petitioner denied any FCM license application; and disputes in relation to FCM in India.
The Petitioner objected to the assumption of the jurisdiction by the Commission and submitted that the information sought by the Commission required the Petitioner to disclose information which would be commercially sensitive, and evidenced a roving inquiry initiated by the Commission.
Held: The Court dismissed the writ petition because it was filed prematurely and based on unfounded apprehensions.
Relevant holdings in relation to the interplay between the Competition Act and the Patents Act: The Court took note of Section 62 of the Competition Act which states that “the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law.” Thus, the Court found that the intent of the legislators was that the Competition Act be additional to other laws rather than in replacement.
The Court found that the Commission is empowered to deal with all information which it may receive with respect to actions that may impede competition, usher in an anti-competitive environment, relate to abuse of dominant position or the adoption of unfair trade practices. The Court held that an objection to the Competition Commission’s jurisdiction can only be sustained if the subject matter of the complaint concerns the rights and liabilities exclusively covered by the Patent Act without possibly being able to fall under the scope of the Competition Act.
Relevant legislation:
S. 3(5) of the Patents Act 1970 of India
Competition Act 2022 of India