05 Nov 2025
In this update:
Partner: Kirti Balasubramanian, Associates: Paarth Samdani and Rhythm Vijayvargiya
In July 2023, a division bench of the Delhi High Court held that the exercise of patent rights by a patentee is governed by the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act), and not the Competition Act, 2002. It observed that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) does not have jurisdiction over such matters.1 The CCI appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, and on 2 September 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court ruling has two key impacts. First, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court decided to curtail the CCI’s jurisdiction in matters concerning standard essential patents. However, while doing so, the Supreme Court kept all questions of law open, indicating that the question of CCI’s jurisdiction in such patent disputes does not stand conclusively decided. Second, the ruling recognised that since the parties to the dispute had reached a private settlement, the matter did not merit further judicial interference by the Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court’s decision was confined to the specific facts of the case, it leaves open the broader policy question of how competition and patent law should interact – an issue likely to resurface in future disputes involving standard-essential patents.
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that patent rights are strictly territorial, and that the grant of a corresponding patent in another jurisdiction has no bearing on the patentability of the same invention in India. It clarified that patent applicants cannot solely rely on foreign grants or prosecution outcomes as persuasive precedent before Indian authorities. It emphasised that each jurisdiction applies its own statutory standards for determining novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, guided by its legislative framework and the understanding of a “person skilled in the art”. Accordingly, each patent application must meet the statutory thresholds defined in the Patents Act, for acceptance and grant in India.2
[1] Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Anr. v the Competition Commission of India and Ors., (LPA No.247/2016, LPA No.150/2020, LPA No.550/2016, LPA No.247/2016 along with W.P.(C) 8379/2015), available here.
[2] Saint Gobain Glass France v Assistant Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 13/2024 with I.A. 8216/2024
If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.
Financial Regulatory Quarterly Milestones (January-March 2026)
30 Apr 2026
Labour and Employment Quarterly Milestones (January-March 2026)
29 Apr 2026
India-Brazil Double Taxation Avoidance Convention: Key changes under the Amending Protocol
29 Apr 2026If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.
Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.trilegal.com, you acknowledge that:
We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:
For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.
