Law firms & seniors galore, as Delhi HC allows anti-competition patents probe vs Ericsson for Micromax [READ JUDGMENT]

Ericsson: Holds a lot of old patents...
Ericsson: Holds a lot of old patents...

Saikrishna & Associates won today for Micromax in the Delhihigh court against Ericsson, which had challenged the validity of a CCIinvestigation into its grant of patents contemporaneously with otherlegal challenges against it.

In a fairly exhaustive and well reasoned decision, Justice VibhuBakhru just ordered that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) cancontinue its investigation into Ericsson’s alleged anti competitivepractices in relation to the enforcement of its standard essentialpatents (SEP) against a host of Indian smartphone manufacturers, such asMicromax and Intex.

reported

Spicy IP, which has an analysis of the judgment:

Justice Bakhru’s decision seems quite well reasoned on a quickreading. The judge clearly spells out that unlike civil law suits, acompetition commission investigation and finding is not in the nature ofa “lis” between parties. And therefore the presence of various law suitsbetween Ericsson and Micromax/Intex do not preclude the jurisdiction ofthe CCI

Further he also holds that Ericsson appears to be in dominant positionand there is no reason for the CCI to not conduct an investigation intoalleged anti-competitive practices (for the purpose of determiningjurisdiction, one has to assume that the allegations made by Micromaxand Intex are true). Mere provisions for compulsory licensing etc underthe patents act does not oust the jurisdiction of the the CCI (see paras179 onwards for key/critical parts of decision).

Ericsson was represented by senior advocates CS Vaidyanathan and_Pratibha Singh_, as well as Singh & Singh Lall & Sethi co-foundingpartner Chander Lall and P&A Law Offices managing partner Anand Pathak and Economic Laws Practice (ELP) partners Suhail Nathani and Ravisekhar Nair.

Senior advocate AN Haksar represented the CCI, with advocate AdityaNarain acting as amicus curiae.

Micromax, which opposed Ericsson in this case, was represented by_Saikrishna & Associates_.

Intex, which had also been opposing Ericsson, was represented by Gaggar & Associates and advocate Arun Kathpalia.

Updated story with ELP and Gaggar & Associates roles.

html Delhi HC Ericsson vs CCI

Picture byChristos Vittoratos

Comments

ABC Lawyer 30 Mar 2016, 14:48
+4 -0
Ericsson was also represented by ELP and Intex by Gaggar and associates.
Incomplete 31 Mar 2016, 06:15
+3 -0
Well that's just misleading , seems the byte was provided by Sai Krishna itself, so Kian if you are showing that senior counsels were the only representing people than mr. Andhyaarjuna has been omitted , mr. Salman Khurshid who infact argued for Micromax rather than mr. Sai rajgopalan has been omitted more over the entire judgment is more predicated on the case of Intex represented by mr. Arun Katpalia and the counsels from Gaggar and Associates who are also omitted. The name of Intex is omitted.

Sigh!!
misleading& incomplete 31 Mar 2016, 07:41
+2 -0
Intex has been omitted, which was represented by Mr.Arun Katpalia and team from Gaggar and Associates.
kianganz 31 Mar 2016, 07:47
+2 -0
Thanks, have updated the story.
misleading& incomplete 31 Mar 2016, 07:57
+2 -0
Check complete facts before reporting.
Best wishes 31 Mar 2016, 09:50
+2 -0
Dear Kian, May your news come from journalistic excellence and best practices that come with it, and not press-releases/ announcements.
Much Needed Judgment 31 Mar 2016, 22:59
+1 -3
Gaggar and Associates is doing great job in the field of Competition Law. Great Job!