Page 34 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 34
2. However, the Patents Act and the Competition Act 6. A potential licensee cannot be precluded from
can be harmonized as: challenging the validity of patents in question.
i. They provide different remedies. 7. The validity of an order under Section 26(1) of the
ii. ection 90 (1) (ix) of the Patents Act refers Competition Act can be examined under Article
226 only from the perspective of:
to a situation where a competition authority i. Whether the allegations made in complaints
adjudicates abuse of a patent. before the CCI could form subject matter
iii. Section 21 and 21 A of the Competition Act before the CCI?
permit the CCI and a statutory authority ii. The complaint must be examined on a
(including the Controller of Patents) to refer demurer: Whether the impugned orders are
issues to each other. perverse?
iv. Section 60 of the Competition Act does not
over rise the special provisions of the Patents 8. The Court remarked that “in the given facts and
Act and should be read to mean as follows: circumstances, it is difficult to form an opinion that the
“Section 60 is enacted only to restate and conduct of Ericsson indicates any abuse of dominance…
emphasize that notwithstanding agreements, however it is not open for this court, in proceedings under
arrangements, practices and conduct which may Article 226, to supplant its views…” and dismissed
otherwise be legitimate under the general laws Ericsson’s writ petitions.
would nonetheless be subject to the rigors of the
Competition Act”. The Court reasoned that Patent Law and Anti-trust law
are not mutually exclusive as both may offer redressals,
3. Therefore, the CCI’s jurisdiction in patent matters albeit fundamentally different, for the same grievance.
is not ousted. Thus, two simultaneous suits for the same grievance
could lie in the two tribunals and the authority of the
4. Seeking injunctive reliefs by an SEP holder in certain CCI to adjudge the matter despite a suit being pending
circumstances may amount to abuse of dominant in front of the Controller was not disputable.
position.
5. Disputes, being subject matters of suits, could be The judgment can be accessed at:
entertained by the CCI: http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIB/judgement/30-03-2016/
VIB30032016CW4642014.pdf
“Merely because a set of facts pleaded in a suit may
also be relevant for determination whether Section 4 of
the Competition Act has been violated does not mean
that a civil court would decide that issue”.
REMOVAL OF GODREJ’S PATENT FROM THE REGISTER
OF PATENT HELD HYPERTECHNICAL AND EXTREME
In a writ petition by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Co. Ltd. against the Controller of Patents and Designs, Petitioner can proceed on the footing that their patent
the High Court of Bombay held that the decision of is registered and can assert their rights based on said
registration.
the Patent Office to remove Godrej’s patent from the
register of patent was hyper technical and extreme. The Court further went on to question the Patent
Office and disputed their non-acceptance of renewal
The Court ruled that it would be accepted by the fees for the registered patent of the Petitioner for the
Patent Office that the Petitioner had indeed paid the year 2007, especially when they had been accepted for
renewal fees and thus the patent cannot be removed prior years and even for the years subsequent to 2007
from the Register of Patents and no coercive action can
be taken in relation thereto. The Court held that the
34 | Patents & Design
