Context:
- Over the past decade, Indian courts have steadily narrowed the space for antitrust scrutiny of patent enforcement, particularly in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). That approach crystallized in 2023, when a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (HC) quashed investigations initiated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Ericsson and Monsanto. Then, in September 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined to interfere with the Delhi HC’s ruling while dismissing the CCI’s appeal in the Ericsson matter, relying on the fact that the underlying disputes had already been settled (September 2, 2025 ip fray article).
- In 2022, the CCI closed a complaint against Swiss pharmaceutical company Vifor International AG concerning its patented drug Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM). While the CCI rejected the complaint on merits, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) went further and held that the CCI lacked jurisdiction altogether. The NCLAT held that disputes arising from the exercise of patent rights fall exclusively within the domain of the Patents Act. The order was appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
What’s new: The Supreme Court of India today indicated that it will now decide the unresolved jurisdictional issue. The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi stayed the NCLAT’s legal findings insofar as they exclude the applicability of the Competition Act to conduct arising from patent enforcement. The court clarified that it will examine only the question of jurisdiction, not the merits of the underlying complaint against Vifor.
Direct impact: The stay is limited to the NCLAT’s observations on jurisdiction, and the closure of the case on merits will not be reopened. The appeal therefore squarely raises a single question of law: whether the CCI can, in principle, examine competition concerns arising from the exercise of patent rights. A detailed analysis will follow once the Supreme Court’s order is available online.
In its decision in September 2025, the Supreme Court held that the Patents Act, 1970, is a special and complete code governing patent licensing, royalty disputes, unreasonable conditions, and compulsory licensing, and that such issues fall outside the scope of the Competition Act, 2002.
On that basis, it ruled that the CCI lacks jurisdiction to investigate abuse of dominance claims arising from the exercise of patent rights.
The court adopted a similar course in a separate case, Novartis v. Natco Pharma, disposing of the appeal on the ground that the patent had expired. In both cases, the Supreme Court expressly left the broader jurisdictional question open (September 5, 2025 ip fray article).
Court and Counsel
Division Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
Vifor is being represented by Anand & Anand‘s Shyam Divan and Vaibhav Gaggar.
The CCI is being represented by Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman.