HC seeks Swedish firm Ericsson's response on CCI's plea

The Competition Commission has petitioned Delhi High Court challenging a single judge verdict setting aside its order to investigate alleged contravention of provisions of the Competition Act by Swedish firm M/s Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson, with the court seeking the telecom company's response.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal also issued notice to Mumbai-based M/s Best IT World (India) Pvt Ltd which had alleged before Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Ericsson was abusing its dominant position, seeking its response by November 7.
The Mumbai-based IT company, which makes electronic goods under the brand name iBall, had requested the CCI to probe alleged discriminatory practices of Ericsson regarding charging of royalty for using its patented technology.

It had claimed that royalty rate being charged by Ericsson had no linkage to the functionality of the patented product, but linked to the final price of manufactured product in which the patent is being used.
IBall had claimed that Ericsson had refused to identify the standard essential patents (SEPs) which were purportedly infringed by it. It was also threatened by patent infringement proceedings.
In its May 12, 2015 order, CCI had directed its Director General to conduct investigation in the matter while observing that prima facie Ericsson appeared to be dominant in the market as it had 33,000 patents to its credit and was the largest holder of SEPs used in mobile communications.

Ericsson had challenged CCI's order before a single judge who set aside the commission's order on the ground that there was a compromise between iBall and Ericsson and the Indian firm was not interested in pursuing its case before the CCI.

Ericsson had contended before the single judge that CCI did not have the jurisdiction to examine the matter under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 and the jurisdiction laid exclusively with civil courts and authorities under the Patents Act 1970.
CCI has said "Though single judge has given liberty to
CCI to initiate suo motu or on intimation of any other person to investigate against Ericsson and CCI would be entitled to revive the investigation from the stage at which it has reached in the present proceedings, however, it has resulted into a situation wherein though the CCI is having jurisdiction in the matter, still its order under section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 has been set aside by the single judge."

It claimed that there was no provision in the Competition Act which permits withdrawal of information filed before CCI. Besides, the contents of compromise between the two companies were not placed either before the commission or before the single judge on December 14, 2015, the CCI said.
It has alleged in its plea that the single judge should have directed these firms to place the compromise before the CCI which could have ascertained as to whether it would lead to the continuation of anti-competitive practices or not.