Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has reiterated that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has no authority to investigate disputes arising from the exercise of patent rights, affirming that such matters fall exclusively within the ambit of the Patents Act, 1970. A bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member) delivered this finding while dismissing an appeal filed by a hospital administrator against a CCI order that had refused to initiate an investigation into the pricing and licensing of a patented drug developed by Swiss pharmaceutical company Vifor International (AG).

Also Read: NCLAT Chennai Refuses To Stall Aakash’s Rights Issue; Says Byju’s Stake Value Can’t Be Protected By “Commercially Killing” Subsidiary

The Tribunal observed: “It is apparent that the CCI lacks the power to examine the allegations made against Vifor International (AG). The Patent Act will prevail over the Competition Act in the facts of this case, as the subject matter of contention is FCM, which was developed and patented by Respondent No. 2.”

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a 2022 CCI decision where the Commission found no evidence of anti-competitive conduct or abuse of dominance by Vifor. The complainant, a hospital administrator associated with a government-backed dialysis programme, had alleged that Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM)—a patented drug used to treat iron deficiency anaemia in dialysis patients—was being sold at an excessively high price, making it unaffordable for patients. He further claimed that restrictive licensing arrangements between Vifor and Indian manufacturers had curtailed market competition and limited the drug’s availability.

Contentions Before the Tribunal

Vifor International (AG), a Switzerland-based company, maintained that it lawfully held the patent for the FCM molecule since 2008 and that the patent had expired in October 2023, enabling other manufacturers to freely produce the medicine thereafter. The company argued that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to question activities lawfully protected under the Patents Act, emphasizing Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, which expressly allows a patent holder to impose reasonable conditions for safeguarding its rights.

The CCI, defending its earlier closure of the case, stated that it had thoroughly examined the licensing terms between Vifor and its Indian partners — Emcure Pharmaceuticals and Lupin Ltd. — and found no evidence of collusion, restrictive trade practice, or abuse of dominant position.

Tribunal’s Observations

The NCLAT noted that issues concerning the exercise of patent rights, including pricing and licensing, must be addressed under the Patents Act, not through the lens of competition law. It emphasized that the Patents Act operates as a self-contained code, comprehensively governing rights and obligations of patent holders.

Also Read: NCLAT: Settlement Cannot Be Recorded Post CIRP Admission; Case Remanded to NCLT for Fresh Consideration

Relying on precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed that the CCI cannot examine matters exclusively regulated under the Patents Act. It referred particularly to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), and the Supreme Court’s subsequent dismissal of the CCI’s appeal in September 2025, which solidified this legal position. “Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in SLP No. 25026/2023, it is clear that the CCI lacks jurisdiction to probe allegations made against Vifor International (AG),” the Tribunal concluded.

Appearance

For Appellant: Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocate

For Respondents: Ms. Deeksha Manchana, Adv. Aileen Aditi Sundardas for R2. Mr. N. Raja Singh, Advocate for CCI, Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Joint Director for CCI, Mr. Dinesh Chand, Dy. Director for CCI. Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate. Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Advvocate with Vaishali K. Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Ms. Gitanjali Sharma, Ms. Ambika Singh, Mr. Abhishek Nair, Advocates for R2.

Cause Title: Swapan Dey v Competition Commission of India and Anr

Case No: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023

Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member),Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member)