The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Competition Commission of India does not lose its authority only because the information it wants to utilise to launch an investigation relates to a patent.
The CCI is properly and statutorily empowered to deal with all information it may receive with respect to actions that may (i) obstruct competition, (ii) usher in an anti-competitive environment, (iii) relate to abuse of dominant position, or (iv) the adoption of unfair trade practises, according to a single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma.
"It would only be true to say that the information would be outside the purview and power of inquiry of the Commission if a complaint fails to raise the aforesaid issues and concerns itself solely or exclusively with violations of the Patent Act, or the infringement or enforcement of rights that may otherwise be conferred by that Act," the statement of the Hon. J reads.
Briefly stated, under Section 19 of the Competition Act, CCI was provided with information against the petitioner.
According to Section 57 of the Act, the informant had submitted a request for confidentiality. In the case, the petitioners were accused of discriminatory pricing regarding a drug that was sold to individual consumers for a substantially greater price than it was supplied to public procurers.
According to the petitioner, the Commission required it to reveal information that would be economically sensitive and subject it to legal action under Article 271 of the Swiss Criminal Code.
Additionally, the petitioner's legal representative claimed that the concerns expressed in the information pertained to a patent holder's rights under the Patents Act of 1970. He claimed that pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, no provision of Section 3 (prohibiting anti-competitive agreements) would restrict the ability of any person to prevent infringement or to impose reasonable conditions that may be required for protecting his/her intellectual property rights, including rights granted to him/her under the Patents Act, 1970, or to enforce any rights conferred upon him/her under that Act.
Additionally, he argued that the Patents Act of 1970's Sections 85, 90, 102, 107, and related clauses established safeguards for any rights that a patent holder would assert.
Contrarily, the CCI attorney argued that the investigation was needed to determine the cost of a medicine that the petitioner licenced, sold, and distributed across the nation and that was anticipated to have a significant effect on a large number of individuals. He also argued that the petitioner's concerns about disclosing commercially sensitive material were unfounded, and he argued that the petitioner had the right to assert confidentiality with regard to any disclosure it might make to the Commission throughout the investigation.
A single bench of the High Court held in Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. that there is no conflict between the Patents Act and the Competition Act and that the CCI's jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding abuse of dominance in relation to patent rights cannot be excluded.
Regarding the petitioner's worry over the disclosure of sensitive and secret trade information, the Court remarked, "It is crucial to note that the Commission's decision to launch an investigation based on potential information is not likely to be perceived or regarded as the start of any coercive measures. In any case, organisations whose operations cross state lines cannot presume immunity from law enforcement or claim exemption from having to comply with statutes that have been passed and have not been proven to violate international law or treaty obligations."
As a result, the writ petition was dismissed with the instruction that the Commission consider the petitioner's objections as it moves forward and resolve them in conformity with the law.