Swapan Dey Vs. Competition Commission of India

Case Title: Swapan Dey Vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.

Case Number: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 5 of 2023

Order Date: 30th October 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:NCLAT:5

Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member) and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member)

---

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Mr. Swapan Dey, a medical professional and CEO of a hospital operating under the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme (PMNDP) through a Public-Private Partnership, filed information before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Vifor International (AG), a Swiss pharmaceutical company, alleging anti-competitive practices. The central issue revolved around the manufacture and sale of a drug known as Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) — a patented molecule used in treating Iron Deficiency Anaemia (IDA), which is a prevalent condition among dialysis patients, women, and children in India.

The appellant contended that due to the anti-competitive conduct of Vifor, the FCM injection had become inaccessible and unaffordable for Indian consumers. He alleged that Vifor abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 and entered into restrictive licensing arrangements in violation of Section 3 of the Act. The essence of his grievance was that Vifor granted limited manufacturing and distribution licences only to Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Ltd., thereby restricting wider market access and keeping prices high.

---

Procedural History

Mr. Swapan Dey initially approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by filing Case No. 5 of 2022 on 12th January 2022. After considering his complaint, the CCI, through its order dated 25th October 2022, closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, finding no prima facie case of anti-competitive conduct or abuse of dominance by Vifor International.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 53B of the Act. The appeal was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna and Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra. During the pendency of the appeal, Vifor’s patent on the FCM molecule expired on 21st October 2023, making the product available in the public domain for free exploitation.

---

Core Dispute

The primary legal question before the Tribunal was whether the CCI possessed jurisdiction to examine alleged anti-competitive conduct by a patentee in relation to its patented invention, or whether such matters exclusively fall within the purview of the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellant argued that CCI failed to properly define the relevant market, assess Vifor’s dominance, and examine whether the limited licensing arrangement restricted competition and consumer access. He also alleged that CCI conducted an “ex-ante” analysis rather than an “ex-post” assessment as required for evaluating violations of Section 3(4) and Section 4 of the Competition Act.

On the other hand, Vifor contended that since the dispute concerned the exercise of patent rights protected under the Patents Act, the CCI had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Vifor relied on Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, 2002, which exempts reasonable restrictions imposed by a patentee to protect its intellectual property rights. Vifor also emphasized that its licensing agreements were reasonable, time-limited, and non-exclusive, and that it had no control over the final retail pricing of FCM injectables sold in India.

---

Detailed Reasoning and Judicial Discussion

The NCLAT undertook a detailed review of the CCI’s findings and the broader legal framework governing the intersection between competition law and intellectual property law.

The Tribunal noted that CCI had examined the appellant’s allegations in detail and found no evidence of anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominance. The CCI had emphasized that Vifor’s licensing terms were not unreasonable, that Emcure and Lupin were independent market participants, and that the agreements were short-term in nature with provisions for renewal. Importantly, the patent on FCM was due to expire in 2023, which would open the market to new manufacturers.

The CCI had also relied on its previous decisions, such as In Re: Hiveloop and Britannia (Case No. 18 of 2021), to reaffirm that a patentee enjoys the freedom to choose its licensees, subject to legal limitations. Moreover, the Commission had referred to Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCI (WP (C) No. 1776/2016, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 20.05.2020), which held that the CCI’s jurisdiction was not ousted merely because the subject matter involved patent rights.

However, during the pendency of the appeal, the legal landscape changed significantly. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. CCI (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4078, LPA 247/2016), held that where the dispute involves the exercise of patent rights, the Patents Act, 1970 prevails over the Competition Act, 2002. The Court observed that Chapter XVI of the Patents Act provides a complete mechanism for addressing issues like abuse of patent rights, unreasonable licensing conditions, and compulsory licensing.

The High Court reasoned that since both the Patents Act and the Competition Act deal with issues of restrictive practices, but the Patents Act is a special law addressing such issues specifically in the context of intellectual property, it must prevail by virtue of the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant — meaning that a special law overrides a general law.

This position was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in CCI v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (SLP No. 25026 of 2023), which dismissed the CCI’s appeal on 2nd September 2025, thereby solidifying the principle that the CCI lacks jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the exercise of patent rights governed by the Patents Act, 1970.

The NCLAT, therefore, drew direct guidance from these landmark rulings and noted that the statutory provisions under Section 83 and 84 of the Patents Act sufficiently empower the Controller of Patents to address concerns about public access, reasonable pricing, and non-working of patents through mechanisms like compulsory licensing. These provisions inherently serve as checks against potential abuse of patent monopolies.

The Tribunal observed that the Competition Act’s Section 3(5) expressly preserves a patentee’s right to impose reasonable conditions for protecting patent rights. Hence, any allegation that arises purely out of the exercise of such rights, without demonstrable evidence of mala fide restriction beyond the patent’s legitimate scope, cannot be entertained under competition law.

Moreover, since the patent for FCM had already expired by October 2023, the issue of alleged dominance or restriction in market access had become purely academic and devoid of practical consequence.

---

Final Decision

After considering the arguments from all sides, including the legal precedents from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the NCLAT held that the CCI had rightly dismissed the information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Competition Commission of India lacked the jurisdiction to examine the alleged anti-competitive behavior of Vifor International in respect of its patented product, as such matters squarely fall within the exclusive domain of the Patents Act, 1970.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal also directed that any pending applications connected with the case be closed.

---

Law Settled and Broader Implication

This decision reinforces the principle that where the alleged anti-competitive conduct arises from the legitimate exercise of patent rights, the Patents Act serves as the exclusive regulatory framework. The Competition Commission of India cannot intrude into matters involving licensing, pricing, or distribution of patented products unless there is clear evidence of conduct exceeding the lawful scope of patent protection.

In essence, this case reaffirms the harmonious interpretation between intellectual property law and competition law — ensuring that innovation is protected while balancing consumer interest. However, it firmly establishes that the remedy for any alleged misuse of patent rights lies under Chapter XVI of the Patents Act through mechanisms like compulsory licensing, rather than under the Competition Act.

---

Suggested Titles for Publication

1. “Patent Power versus Competition Control: The Jurisdictional Divide in Swapan Dey v. CCI”

2. “Balancing Innovation and Market Freedom: NCLAT on Patent Monopoly and Competition Law”

3. “When Patent Law Prevails: A Study on the Limitation of CCI’s Jurisdiction under Section 3(5)”

4. “The Ferric Carboxymaltose Dispute: Understanding the Interface between Patent Protection and Market Competition”

5. “NCLAT Upholds Patent Supremacy: Legal Insights from Swapan Dey v. CCI & Vifor International”

---

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi