Competition law vs patent rights: NCLAT rules CCI has no power to probe patented product disputes; upholds case against Swiss drugmaker Vifor

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) does not have the power to investigate disputes related to patented products, holding that the Patent Act takes precedence over the Competition Act in such cases, PTI reported.Dismissing an appeal against a CCI order that had closed a complaint against Swiss pharma major Vifor International (AG), a two-member NCLAT bench said that the fair trade regulator lacks jurisdiction to examine such matters, PTI reported.“Considering the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) and the Supreme Court in SLP No. 25026/2023, it is apparent that the CCI lacks the power to examine the allegations made against Vifor International (AG),” the tribunal observed.Vifor International held the patent for Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM) injection, a drug used to treat Iron Deficiency Anaemia (IDA). The tribunal stated: “The Patent Act will prevail over the Competition Act in the facts of this case, as the subject matter of contention is FCM, which was developed and patented by Respondent No. 2 (Vifor International).”NCLAT noted that Section 3(5) of the Competition Act provides specific protection to patent holders to restrain infringement or impose reasonable conditions to safeguard their rights. “The Competition Act, in Section 3(5), has laid down that the Act will not restrict the right of any person in protecting his rights under the Patent Act,” it said.The appeal was filed by Swapan Dey, CEO of a hospital offering free dialysis services under the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme (PMNDP). Dey alleged that Vifor’s “anti-competitive and abusive conduct” had made FCM injections unaffordable and inaccessible to patients.However, the CCI had closed the case in its October 25, 2022 order, finding no prima facie contravention under Sections 3(4) or 4 of the Competition Act. Dey then challenged the order before NCLAT, arguing that the CCI failed to properly define the relevant market or assess Vifor’s dominance.Vifor countered the claim, asserting that the CCI lacked jurisdiction since the matter involved a patented molecule governed by the Patent Act. The company also informed the tribunal that its patent for FCM, granted on June 25, 2008, had expired on October 21, 2023, making it freely available for manufacturing and sale.NCLAT held that while the patent’s expiry meant the drug had entered the public domain, the key question was jurisdiction—whether CCI could have examined the issue when the product was still under patent protection.Citing the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), which held that the Patent Act overrides the Competition Act, the tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had upheld that position by dismissing CCI’s appeal on September 2, 2025.“Following the judicial guidance as noted above, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed,” NCLAT concluded.