Category: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s disposal of CCI v. Ericsson has triggered significant debate over the respective roles of patent law and competition law in regulating SEPs. Brian Scarpelli explains how this decision creates a crucial policy moment for India to clarify the role of its legal framework in addressing anticompetitive SEP licensing practices. Brian Scarpelli is

Can CCI decide whether a patentee, in exercising his exclusive rights under the Patent Act, has violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002? Readers of this blog must be aware how hotly contested this question is (here, here, here, here and here). From initially holding that CCI does have jurisdiction to investigate, a DHC DB had ultimately ousted CCI’s power to investigate abuse

Part II of the Novo v. Dr. Reddy judgement will shift the spotlight to prior claiming under sec. 64(1)(a). The inspiration to write this post came from a 2013 guest post by Darren Smyth, who was kind enough to have an hour long discussion with me on his post. The comments on that post, itself, are a trove of

While the battle over the word ‘choice’ rages, some basic trademark principles are being forgotten. Even though the Supreme Court referred Allied Blenders and John Distillers to mediation, Aryan Agrawal, in this guest post, explains why it is not enough. He traces the trajectory of the dispute from the Madras High Court and shows how

The NCLAT’s decision in Swapan Dey v. CCI marks the latest turn in the growing reluctance to let the CCI probe allegations of anti-competitive conduct stemming from the enforcement of patent rights. Yet, as Vasundra Koul points out, intellectual property and competition law are explicitly linked. Explaining the interplay between the Competition Act and the

The recent decision of the SC in Novenco Building and Industry v. Xero Energy Engineering seems to have been well taken. Comments online have showered praised over the decision for striking the right balance between procedural lapse and substantive justice. Writing on this blog for over 2 years now, I have learnt one important lesson- the outcome

In Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes, the Supreme Court clarified a small but significant corner of Indian patent law. The Court recognised that suits against groundless threats of infringement have their own independent footing under Section 106 of the Patents Act – and aren’t automatically overridden by an infringement action. Hafsah Azhar Ansari breaks down the Court’s

Image from here In our previous post on the Risdiplam saga, we had mentioned that Roche has filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. Earlier today, the SC dismissed this SLP with instructions to the High Court that it shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Roche raised the usual arguments on rare diseases,

The Supreme Court in Ericsson v. CCI was expected to clear the air on a tricky regulatory question concerning CCI and the Controller General, but the dispute seems to have had an anticlimactic end with the Court declining to decide on the point of law. Ambika Aggarwal writes on this development below. Ambika is a

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS JUVENILITY AND BAIL IN A MURDER CASE The Judgment in the case of Rajni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11233 of 2022), along with Criminal Appeal No. 2569 of 2025, was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising