NCLAT Clarifies Jurisdictional Boundary in Patent–Competition Overlap
In a significant ruling delivered on 30 October 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of anti-competitive behaviour when the dispute relates to a patented product. In such cases, the Patents Act, 1970 prevails over the Competition Act, 2002.
The decision arose from Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023, filed by Swapan Dey, against the CCI and Vifor International (AG).
Background of the Case
The appellant had filed information before the CCI alleging that Vifor International’s patented drug – Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) – was overpriced and subject to restrictive licensing arrangements that affected availability for patients. The CCI, however, closed the matter on 25 October 2022 under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, finding no prima facie case.
The patent over FCM, which was granted on 25 June 2008, expired on 21 October 2023, after which the product entered the public domain. During the period relevant to the complaint, however, the patent was in full force.
NCLAT’s Legal Analysis
The Tribunal examined Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, which protects the right of a patentee to impose reasonable conditions for safeguarding patent rights.
The statutory framework under Chapter XVI of the Patents Act (Sections 83–90), which deals with the working of patents, restrictive conditions, and compulsory licensing.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI, which held that Chapter XVI of the Patents Act is a complete code for regulating the rights and obligations of patent holders.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the CCI’s SLP, challenging the Delhi High Court’s ruling, thereby reinforcing the primacy of the Patents Act.
NCLAT concluded that when the alleged conduct relates directly to a patented invention, the appropriate statute is the Patents Act, not the Competition Act.
It reiterated that the Patents Act contains its own comprehensive regulatory mechanisms—including compulsory licensing and oversight of licensing practices—which cannot be bypassed through a competition complaint.
Holding and Outcome
NCLAT held that: The subject matter of the allegations was a patented product (FCM).
Therefore, issues concerning pricing, licensing, or other conduct governing patented inventions fall within the exclusive domain of the Patents Act.
The CCI lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal emphasised that remedies relating to the working of patents or access to patented products must be sought under the Patents Act, not before the competition authority.
Significance
This ruling reinforces a clear demarcation:
Patent law prevails when the alleged conduct arises from the exercise of patent rights.
Competition inquiries cannot run parallel to the specific remedies provided under the Patents Act.
Patent holders obtain greater clarity about the scope of their rights while the patent remains valid.
Complainants must pursue patent-specific mechanisms, such as those contained in Chapter XVI, rather than approaching the CCI.
Case title: Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.
Case No.: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023
Decision Date: 30 October 2025
