- within Intellectual Property, Corporate/Commercial Law and Employment and HR topic(s)
- with readers working within the Oil & Gas and Law Firm industries
NCLAT RULES THAT CCI HAS NO POWER TO INVESTIGATE PATENT DISPUTES
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), by its order dated 30 October 2025, dismissed an appeal challenging an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) closing a case against Vifor International (AG) under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act).
The appellant, CEO of a hospital providing dialysis services under a government programme, had alleged that Vifor International, the Swiss developer and patent holder of the drug Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) used in treating iron deficiency anaemia, is engaged in anticompetitive practices by limiting access and keeping prices high. It was alleged that Vifor's exclusive licensing arrangements with Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Ltd. violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
The CCI, by its order dated 25 October 2022, found no prima facie contravention, observing that the licensing terms appeared reasonable and that the agreements were limited in duration. It also noted that the patent on FCM had been due to expire in 2023, after which the molecule would be freely available.
NCLAT dismissed appeal against the CCI order. NCLAT also held issues concerning exercise of patent rights fall within the exclusive domain of the Patents Act, 1970, and not the Competition Act. Relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. CCI and Supreme Court in September 2025 — the NCLAT held that the Patents Act prevails as a special statute over the Competition Act in matters involving alleged abuse of patent rights.
Informant's account to a previously banned account and that its appeal process, combining automated and human review, was fair, consistent, and applied uniformly globally.
The CCI found that Google's policies and enforcement actions were reasonable and non-discriminatory. It noted that the Informant had significant ties to Shri Dakshay Sanghvi, whose account was previously terminated, and that Google had provided sufficient reasoning within the bounds of its policy to protect platform integrity. The CCI also observed that standard form contracts like the GPDDA are common in the industry and had previously been examined without finding contravention of the Act.
Accordingly, the CCI held that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance was made out and closed the matter
CCI APPROVES COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED'S ACQUISITION OF NACL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
The CCI, by its order, approved the acquisition of up to 78.98% of the voting share capital of NACL Industries Limited (NACL/Target) by Coromandel International Limited (CIL/Acquirer).
The Proposed Combination envisages the acquisition of up to 78.98% of the voting share capital of NACL in the following manner: (i) Acquisition of 52.98% of the voting share capital of NACL by CIL from the KLR Products Limited (Seller); (ii) Acquisition of 0.003% of the voting share capital of NACL by CIL from Krishi Rasayan; (iii) Acquisition of 0.003% of the voting share capital of NACL by CIL from Agro Life Science Corporation (ALSC); and (iv) Open offer by CIL involves the acquisition of up to 26% of the voting share capital of NACL The CCI, by its order, determined that the proposed acquisition of 1.64% equity shareholding in Lenskart Solutions Limited (Lenskart) and the acquisition of shares in Care Health Insurance Limited (Care) by Kedaara II Continuation Fund (Acquirer) from other entities within the Kedaara Group were eligible for an exemption and did not require approval under Section 6(2) of the Act.
The CCI noted that the transactions constituted an intra-group restructuring where the ultimate control of both Lenskart and Care would remain solely with the Kedaara Group both before and after the acquisitions, with no acquisition of new rights or material influence.
Accordingly, the NCLAT ruled that the CCI lacks jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of anti-competitive conduct arising from exercise of patent rights, and dismissed the appeal.
CCI DISMISSES ABUSE OF DOMINANCE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE, UPHOLDS PLAY STORE ACCOUNT TERMINATION
The CCI, by its order dated October 06 2025, dismissed the allegations of abuse of dominant position filed by Liberty Infospace Private Limited (Informant) against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, and Google India Private Limited (Google).
The Informant, being an MSME, was engaged in the business of developing and maintaining a digital app named and styled as 'EasyDo Tasks-HRMS Payroll AI' (the HRMS App). The Informant alleged that Google abruptly terminated its developer account on Play Store without any notice, specific reasons and fair warnings. The termination removed the HRMS aApp, from the Play Store, where it had over 16,000 downloads. Informant claimed that the termination was arbitrary, based on alleged links with previously banned accounts, and that Google's "relational ban policy" and opaque appeal process amounted to discriminatory and abusive conduct.
Google, however, contended that the termination was in accordance with the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement (GPDDA), which permits immediate suspension in cases of serious violations, including those involving related accounts. Google explained that its enforcement mechanisms balance transparency with the need to prevent misuse of its systems.
Google asserted that the termination was based on objective evidence linking the (i.e., the entire public shareholding in NACL) from its public shareholders.
The CCI noted that the parties are primarily engaged in the agrochemical sector. Based on the business of the parties, the CCI observed that the parties exhibit horizontal overlaps in the markets for the manufacture and supply of various Crop Protection Products (CPPs), such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and in the market for the manufacture and supply of the Active Ingredient (A.I.) 'Profenofos'.
The combined market share of the parties was found to be less than 10% in most CPP markets and in the range of 25-30% in the narrow Profenofos market. However, given the presence of other significant competitors and low barriers to entry in the Profenofos market, the CCI concluded that the overlaps are not likely to raise any competition concerns.
In terms of vertical overlaps, the CCI noted that the combination created linkages where CIL supplies A.I.s to the downstream market for CPP manufacture, in which NACL operates, and vice-versa. A potential vertical relationship was also identified in the upstream market for the manufacture of CPPs by NACL and the downstream market for the distribution of CPPs by CIL through its retail stores.
The CCI, after considering the vertical overlaps, observed that these linkages were not significant enough to cause any foreclosure concerns, especially given the presence of various competitors in both the upstream and downstream markets in India and accordingly, approved the combination.
CCI EXEMPTS INTRA-GROUP TRANSFER OF LENSKART AND CARE HOLDINGS BY KEDAARA FUND FROM FORMAL APPROVAL
The Acquirer filed the notice before the CCI, stating that the transaction did not meet a strict literal interpretation of the exemption criteria under Rule 3 of the Competition (Criteria of Exemption of Combination) Rules, 2024 (Exemption Rules), as it did not involve an 'incremental' acquisition of shares.
However, the CCI rejected this literal interpretation, observing that it would be inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of the Act and the Exemption Rules. The CCI concluded that since all substantive conditions of Rule 3 were fulfilled, the transactions were exempt from notification requirements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
