Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE,
CLUBBED WITH
PCRA……………………………………………………………. INFORMANT
WAYNOR LABS
Contents
i
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
& And
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
EL Erdevan laboratories
SL Sulken Laboratories
Bom. Bombay
Del. Delhi
Inc. Incorporation
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
(1985) ......................................................................................... 5
................................................................................................. 10
(1070) ......................................................................................... 5
................................................................................................... 3
iii
Glenmark Generics Ltd., Glenmark Access Ltd. & Glenmark
3d 762. ....................................................................................... 2
(2012)............................................................................................. 6
Prasar Bharti v. TAM Media Research Private Ltd., No. 70, C.C.I.
(2012). ........................................................................................ 3
iv
Rado v. John Two & Son Ltd., (1967) R.P.C. 297. ............................ 9
673 ............................................................................................. 9
Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 348-49 (1963) .... 9
Standard Oil Co. of California and Standard Inc. v. United States 337
(C.C.I.). ....................................................................................... 6
United States v. Syufy Enter., 903 F. 2d 659 (9th Cir. 1990). .......... 4
United States v. Tracinda Inv. Corp., 477 F. Supp. 1093 (CD Cal.
1979). ......................................................................................... 8
VFS Global Services Private v. Mr. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom. C.R.
446 ............................................................................................. 5
v
Walker Process Equipments Inc. v. Food Machinery and
Statutes
Other Authorities
Treatises
1957. .......................................................................................... 3
Regulations
vi
Books
Competition Law & Policy in the E.C. and U.K. 213 (4th ed.,
D.P. Mittal, Competition Law & Practice 185 (3rd ed. 2011). .......... 4
Law Reports
Online Resources
OECD (2000),http://www.fne.gob.cl/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/OECD_-2000-Competition-and-
regulation-issues-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry.pdf .................. 10
www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf .................. 4
Guidelines
vii
Commission’s Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, para 116. ............ 1
Articles
Journals
0017 ........................................................................................... 4
viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Commission.
ix
STATEMENT OF FACTS
of sec 3(1), 3(3) (a)-(c) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002.
x
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
AGREEMENT?
PRACTICES?
xi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
abusive. The market for Glidolin patent was open for all the buyers.
The investment was passive in nature and the merger was not a
not in violation of sec 19(3) a-c of the competitive act and is not
creating AAEC.
xii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
licensee. The market for Glidolin patent was open for all the
1
is not anti-competitive in nature4, but abuse of monopoly is
considered as anti-competitive5.
DOMINANT POSITION
4 Hans Henrik Lidgard and T. Nguyen, The C.F.I. Microsoft Judgment and T.R.I.P.s
Competition Flexibilities; European Commission’s Guidelines on the application of Article [101
T.F.E.U.] to technology transfer agreements O.J. [2004] C. 101/2; A.B.A.
5 Case T.-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission; Case C.O.M.P/C.-3/37.792 Microsoft, O.J. 2007
L32/23.
6 Competition Act,2002 §19(5).
7Standard Oil Co. of California and Standard Inc. v. United States 337 U.S. 293 (1949); Walker
Process Equipment’s Inc. v. Food Machinery and Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965).
8 Moot Proposition ¶2.
9 Lucas Automotive Engineering v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 275 F. 3d 762.
10 Raghavan Committee Report on Competition Law4.4.5
https://theindiancompetitionlaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/report_of_high_level_committe
e_on_competition_policy_law_svs_raghavan_committee.pdf. Last visited on (05 August 2018
7:15 PM).
11 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 102, Mar. 25, 1957.
2
of dominance’12. It cannot be considered to be deciding factor
Glidolin but it was not abusing its position and was ready to
barrier to entry17.
12 Kini v. Dr L.H. Hiranandani Hospital, No. 39, C.C.I. (2012); Hilti AG v. Commission 1991
E.C.R. II-1439 ; Hoffmann La-Roche & Co. v. Commission, 1979 E.C.R. 461.
13 Moot Proposition ¶6.
14 France Telecom v. Commission, Case C.-202/07, (2007) E.C.R. II- 107; N.V.
3
VI. The counsel submits that the case at hand has seen a fair and
18 Application of art. 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements Official
Journal L. 123 , 27/04/2004 P. 0011 - 0017 ;European Telecommunications Standards
Institute, E.T.S.I. Guide on Intellectual Property Rights(Nov. 30, 2011), http://
www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf; Vikas Kathuria and Jessica C. Lai,
Validity of Non-Disclosure Agreements in S.E.P. Licensing, Tilburg University J. (11 Jan. 2018).
19 V.F.S. Global Services Private v. Mr. Suprit Roy, 2008 (2) Bom. C.R. 446; H.M.M. Limited v.
4
section 4(2)(a)(ii) as it was based on extent of usage and
22 Case T.-201/04 Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, 2007 E.C.R. II-3601 (1070); Aspen Skiing Co
v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. 472 U.S. 585 (1985); American Tobacco Company v. United
States 328 U.S. 781 (1946); United States v. Aluminium 148 F. 2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
23 Moot Proposition ¶8.
24National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2014 CompLR
304 (CompAT).
25 Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 Comp. L.R. 1009 (C.C.I.).
26 Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Google Ltd. Liability Co., No. 7&30, C.C.I. (2012).
5
volume and on extent of usage and, therefore did not result
NOTIFIABLE
6
the basic business decisions of the issuer28. It was done in the
XI. In the case of Fenton and Waynor, the merger between two
competitors.
7
4. EL PATENT SHOULD BE REVOKED
product produced was not a new result but just the improved
PRACTICES
XIII. The JV would come under the exception of the sec 3 (3) of the
32 Farbwerke Hoechst & B. Corporation v. Unichem Laboratories, A.I.R. (1969) Bom. 255.
33 Rado v. John Two & Son Ltd., (1967) R.P.C. 297.
34 Gillette Safety Razor co. v. Anglo-American Trading Co. Ltd., 30 R.P.C. 465 (1913); Ravi Raj
8
competitive pressure from other manufacturer, the cost
MARKET ACCESS
9
specific use of such product is concerned40 and that the
40 Om Datt Sharma v. M/s. Adidas AG, (2014) C.C.I. 10; Shri Amitabh v. Kent R.O. Systems,
(2014) C.C.I. 100.
41 Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985).
10
same.42There was no intention on part of the JV to acquire
sec 19(3) of the act and moreover the act only promote and
42National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85
(1984); Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 S.C.C. 499.
43Yogesh Ganesh Somani v. Zee Turner Ltd., (2013) C.C.I. 31; Glenmark Generics Ltd., Glenmark
Access Ltd. & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2014) C.C.I. 44; State of U.P. v. Gir Prasad,
(2004) 3 S.C.C. 152.
11
PRAYER
Supply Agreement.
of Market Access
Competition Sd/-
xiii