VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. These petitions have been filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), a company incorporated under the Laws of Sweden (hereafter also referred to as Ericsson), inter-alia, impugning orders dated 12 November, 2013 and 16 January, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the impugned order or impugned orders) passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter CCI) under Section 26 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Competition Act'). The impugned order dated 12 November, 2013 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Micromax Informatics Ltd. (hereafter Micromax) under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act and the same is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 464/2014 (hereafter also referred to as the Micromax Petition) and the impugned order dated 16 January, 2014 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. (hereafter Intex) and is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 1006 of 2014 (hereafter also referred to as the Intex Petition).

2. The controversy raised in these petitions are similar and, therefore, these petitions were taken up together.

3. Both Micromax and Intex have alleged that Ericsson, which has a large portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in respect of technologies that are used in mobile handsets and network stations, has abused its position of dominance. The information filed by them before the CCI under Section 19 of the Competition Act has persuaded the CCI to pass the impugned orders directing the Director General (DG) CCI to investigate the matter regarding violation of the provisions of the Competition Act. The CCI has further directed that if DG finds that Ericsson has contravened the provisions of the Competition Act, he shall also investigate the role of persons who at the time of such contravention, were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of Ericsson so as to fix the responsibility of such persons under Section 48 of the Competition Act. The substratal dispute between Ericsson and Micromax/Intex relate to Ericsson’s demand for royalty in respect of SEPs held by Ericsson and which it claims has been infringed by Micromax and Intex.

4. According to Ericsson, the impugned orders passed by the CCI are without jurisdiction as it lacks the jurisdiction to commence any proceeding in relation to a claim of royalty by a proprietor of a patent (hereafter also referred to as a 'patentee'). Ericsson contends that any issue regarding a claim for royalty would fall within the scope of Patents Act, 1970 (hereafter the Patents Act) and cannot be a subject matter of examination under the Competition Act. This, essentially, is the principal controversy involved in these petitions.

Introduction

5. Ericsson was founded in 1876 and is a flagship company of the Ericsson Group. Ericsson is engaged in developing and providing equipment and services relating to the information and communication technology. It is claimed that Ericsson is one of the largest telecommunications company in the world and the Ericsson Group designs and manufactures telecommunication equipment, setups and manages telecommunications network and is engaged in research and development of frontline technologies in the field of data communication and mobile networks. Ericsson claims that it has played a significant role in the growth and expansion of the telecommunications industry in India and its involvement in India dates back to 1903, when Ericsson supplied manual switch boards to the Government of India. It is claimed that Ericsson has a significant presence in India with around 20,000 employees across 25 offices located in various parts of the country.

6. Micromax is an Indian company and its registered office is situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. Micromax claims that it is the 12th largest mobile handset manufacturer in the world and is focused on providing innovative products catering to the needs of the Indian consumers. Micromax states