{"id":366482,"date":"2025-11-13T09:00:56","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T03:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=366482"},"modified":"2025-11-12T18:25:08","modified_gmt":"2025-11-12T12:55:08","slug":"private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/","title":{"rendered":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the Delhi High Court’s ruling that once a settlement is reached between an informant and the party against whom information is filed, “the very substratum of the proceedings by Competition Commission of India (CCI) is lost”.1<\/sup><\/a> This precedent, while seemingly promoting alternative dispute resolution, raises profound questions about the regulatory vacuum emerging in the unregulated domain of standard essential patents (SEPs) and its implications for India’s competitive landscape.<\/p>\n

The standard essential patent ecosystem<\/h2>\n

SEPs represent a unique category of intellectual property rights that protect technologies deemed indispensable for implementing specific technical standards. These patents are particularly prevalent in telecommunications, where compliance with established protocols like 2G global system for mobile communication (GSM), 3G universal mobile telecommunications framework (UMTS), 4G long-term evolution (LTE), 5G, and wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) networks is mandatory for device interoperability.2<\/sup><\/a> Unlike ordinary patents, SEPs carry inherent market power due to their essentiality for standard compliance, creating potential for abuse through excessive licensing demands or discriminatory practices.<\/p>\n

To mitigate this risk, SEP holders typically commit to licensing their patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms when contributing to standard-setting organisations.3<\/sup><\/a> However, India lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework governing SEP licensing, leaving the determination of what constitutes “fair” and “reasonable” to case-by-case judicial interpretation. This regulatory lacuna becomes particularly problematic when private settlements occur without regulatory oversight, potentially masking anti-competitive behaviours.<\/p>\n

The significance of this issue is amplified by India’s burgeoning internet of things (IoT) sector, where devices increasingly rely on multiple SEPs for connectivity protocols. The global royalty income from SEPs was estimated at USD 20 billion in 2021, with projections indicating substantial growth as IoT technologies become more prevalent.4<\/sup><\/a> In this context, unregulated private settlements risk creating precedents that could undermine competitive market dynamics.<\/p>\n

The Monsanto<\/span> judgment: A regulatory retreat<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court’s decision in CCI<\/span> v. Monsanto Holdings (P) Ltd.<\/span><\/a>5<\/sup><\/a> (Monsanto case<\/span>) represents a significant departure from the traditional understanding of competition law enforcement as serving broader public interest. The Court’s reasoning that it “should not interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court” in light of the “peculiar facts and circumstances” where “original complainants\/informants have nothing further to say in the matter” establishes a concerning precedent.<\/p>\n

The judgment’s most significant aspect lies in its implicit acceptance that private dispute resolution can terminate regulatory proceedings, even when broader market implications remain unresolved. This approach fundamentally mischaracterises the nature of competition law enforcement, which serves not merely the private interests of individual complainants, but the broader public interest in maintaining competitive markets.<\/p>\n

The Court’s decision to keep “questions of law involved in this litigation” open “to be agitated in some other appropriate case” provides little solace for regulatory certainty. This approach creates a legal vacuum where SEP disputes, often involving complex technical and economic considerations with far-reaching market implications, can be resolved through private arrangements without regulatory scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Forum shopping and strategic settlements<\/h2>\n

The judgment incentivises SEP holders and implementers to engage in strategic settlements to avoid CCI scrutiny. Large technology companies with substantial SEP portfolios could leverage this precedent to negotiate settlements that, while resolving immediate disputes, may contain terms that disadvantage smaller market participants or create barriers to entry for emerging competitors.<\/p>\n

This risk is particularly acute in SEP licensing, where the absence of clear FRAND guidelines allows for wide variation in licensing terms. A settlement that appears reasonable between two large corporations might set royalty rates or licensing conditions that smaller IoT manufacturers cannot afford, effectively consolidating market power among established players.<\/p>\n

Erosion of regulatory deterrence<\/h2>\n

Competition law enforcement relies significantly on deterrent effects to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. When regulatory proceedings can be terminated through private settlements, the deterrent value of potential CCI investigation and penalties is substantially diminished. This erosion is particularly problematic in SEP licensing, where the potential for abuse is high due to the essential nature of the technologies involved.<\/p>\n

The Delhi High Court’s observation in Interdigital Technology Corpn.<\/span> v. Xiaomi Corpn.<\/span><\/a>6<\/sup><\/a> that FRAND obligations create mutual responsibilities for both SEP holders and implementers becomes meaningless if these obligations can be privately negotiated away without regulatory oversight.<\/p>\n

Market fragmentation and innovation stifling<\/h2>\n

Private settlements in SEP disputes often involve cross-licensing arrangements or portfolio-wide agreements that can create market segmentation. When these arrangements are concluded without regulatory scrutiny, they may inadvertently create technological silos or restrict access to essential technologies for certain market segments.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s approach in Ericsson Inc.<\/span> v. D-Link Systems<\/span><\/a>7<\/sup><\/a>, emphasising calculation of royalties based on the “smallest saleable patent-practising unit” (SSPPU), was designed to prevent excessive royalty demands that could stifle innovation. However, when settlements occur without regulatory oversight, there is no mechanism to ensure such principles are followed, potentially leading to arrangements that impose excessive costs on smaller manufacturers.<\/p>\n

Regulatory arbitrage<\/h2>\n

The judgment creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where parties can choose to settle disputes in India to avoid more stringent regulatory scrutiny available in other jurisdictions. This undermines India’s position in global SEP governance and may lead to a “race to the bottom”, where India becomes a preferred jurisdiction for avoiding meaningful regulatory oversight of potentially anti-competitive SEP licensing practices.<\/p>\n

Comparative perspectives: Learning from global precedents<\/h2>\n

The European Union’s approach in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. ZTE Corpn.<\/span><\/a>8<\/sup><\/a> established clear procedural safeguards for SEP enforcement, requiring SEP holders to offer FRAND terms before seeking injunctive relief. This framework ensures that even when parties settle, the underlying FRAND principles are respected and regulatory oversight is maintained.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the UK’s position in Unwired Planet International Ltd.<\/span> v. Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd.<\/span><\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> , establishing courts’ authority to determine global FRAND royalty rates, demonstrates how judicial intervention can provide clarity while maintaining competitive safeguards. The UK approach ensures that settlements occur within a regulated framework rather than completely outside regulatory oversight.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the Monsanto<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a> judgment appears to abdicate regulatory responsibility entirely, leaving SEP licensing disputes to purely private resolution without considering broader market implications.<\/p>\n

Recommendations for reform<\/h2>\n

To address the unintended consequences of the Monsanto precedent, several reforms are urgently needed, wherein, the lawmakers should clarify through an amendment to the Competition Act, 2002<\/a>, that competition law proceedings serve public interest and cannot be terminated solely through private settlements between original parties. The law should explicitly recognise that CCI proceedings are in rem (concerning market conditions) rather than merely in personam (between private parties). And, India urgently needs comprehensive SEP legislation that establishes clear FRAND determination mechanisms, mandatory disclosure requirements for SEP holders, and procedural safeguards for licensing negotiations. Such legislation should include provisions preventing settlements that circumvent regulatory oversight when broader market implications are involved.<\/p>\n

Adding to that, the courts require specialised training on the technical and economic complexities of SEP disputes. Clear judicial guidelines should be established for assessing when private settlements adequately address public interest concerns and when continued regulatory oversight is necessary. The CCI should be empowered to continue investigations even after private settlements when significant market implications remain unresolved. This power should include authority to review settlement terms for potential anti-competitive effects and to impose conditions ensuring compliance with competition law principles.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a>, while promoting settlement as a dispute resolution mechanism, creates significant risks for competition law enforcement in the critical domain of standard essential patents. The judgment’s implicit acceptance that private settlements can terminate regulatory proceedings fails to recognise the broader public interest served by the competition law enforcement.<\/p>\n

In the absence of comprehensive SEP regulation, allowing unrestricted private settlements risks creating a regulatory vacuum that sophisticated market participants can exploit to avoid meaningful oversight of potentially anti-competitive licensing practices. This is particularly concerning given India’s growing importance in global technology supply chains and the increasing prevalence of SEP-dependent technologies in everyday devices.<\/p>\n

The questions of law that the Supreme Court has left, “open to be agitated in some other appropriate case” require urgent attention. However, waiting for another case to clarify these fundamental issues risks allowing further erosion of regulatory oversight in a sector where such oversight is critical for maintaining competitive markets and fostering innovation.<\/p>\n

India’s technology sector, particularly the emerging IoT ecosystem, requires a balanced approach that promotes both innovation and competition. This balance cannot be achieved through purely private dispute resolution mechanisms that ignore broader market implications. Instead, India needs a comprehensive regulatory framework that ensures SEP licensing occurs under transparent, fair conditions while maintaining space for legitimate business negotiations.<\/p>\n

The Monsanto precedent, while final in its immediate application, should serve as a catalyst for broader reform rather than a template for future regulatory abdication. Only through such reform can India ensure that its competition law framework remains effective in addressing the complex challenges posed by essential technology licensing in the digital age.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Associate, India Law Offices LLP, New Delhi. Author can be reached at: chanakyakene25@outlook.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> CCI<\/span> v. Monsanto Holdings<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2329<\/a>, para 3.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> European Commission, Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation on Standard Essential Patents, 4 (2023).<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> WIPO, “What is FRAND: Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Licensing”, World Intellectual Property Organisation (2025).<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> LexisNexis Intellectual Property, “Who Wins the IoT SEP Race?” (2023). (not found, please check)<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2329<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1633<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> 2014 SCC OnLine US CA FC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> [2015] Bus LR 1261<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> 2020 UKSC 37<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> CCI<\/span> v. Monsanto Holdings (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2329<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> CCI<\/span> v. Monsanto Holdings (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2329<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Chanakya Kene*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":366493,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[34420,92511,92513,74643,92515,72374,92516,89775,92512,92514],"class_list":["post-366482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-antitrust","tag-competitionlaw","tag-frandlicensing","tag-indialaw","tag-innovationlaw","tag-intellectualproperty","tag-iotregulation","tag-legalreform","tag-seps","tag-techpolicy"],"yoast_head":"\nPrivate Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-11-13T03:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"757\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"508\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/\",\"name\":\"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-13T03:30:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp\",\"width\":757,\"height\":508,\"caption\":\"Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement | SCC Times","description":"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement","og_description":"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-11-13T03:30:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":757,"height":508,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/","name":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp","datePublished":"2025-11-13T03:30:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"The recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp","width":757,"height":508,"caption":"Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/13\/private-settlements-in-standard-essential-patent-disputes-unintended-consequences-for-competition-law-enforcement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Private Settlements in Standard Essential Patent Disputes: Unintended Consequences for Competition Law Enforcement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Standard-Essential-Patents-SEPs.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":41071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/01\/cci-free-to-continue-its-enquiry-in-cases-relating-to-abuse-of-dominance-of-patent-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":0},"title":"CCI free to continue its enquiry in cases relating to abuse of dominance of Patent Rights","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 1, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: While upholding the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India (CCI) to entertain complaints regarding abuse of dominance of Patent Rights, the Court dismissed a challenge by Ericsson to two orders passed by CCI to look into allegations of abuse of market dominance. In order to confirm regularity\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":278052,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-denies-nokias-plea-of-directing-oppo-to-pay-royalty-to-nokia-under-order-39-rule-10-cpc-in-standard-essential-patents-seps-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court denies Nokia’s plea of directing Oppo to pay royalty to Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC in Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) case","author":"Editor","date":"November 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. held that the FRAND Agreement between Nokia and Oppo was on a counter-licensing basis and did not indicate any admission\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":235028,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/28\/uk-sc-whether-a-court-in-the-united-kingdom-has-jurisdiction-to-grant-an-injunction-to-restrain-the-infringement-of-a-uk-patent-detailed-report\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":2},"title":"UK SC | Whether a court in the United Kingdom has jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain the infringement of a UK patent? [Detailed Report]","author":"Editor","date":"August 28, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: While deciding the instant appeal raising questions important to the international market in telecommunications such as - Whether a court in the United Kingdom has jurisdiction and may properly exercise a power, without the agreement of both parties to grant an injunction to restrain\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":319605,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/06\/dhc-awards-rs-244-crore-damages-to-ericsson-against-lava-for-patent-infringement-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court awards Rs 244 crore damages to Ericsson against Lava for infringement of its Standard Essential Patents","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The present case has highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between protecting fair access to standardized technologies and protecting intellectual property rights.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/18\/del-hc-interdigital-v-xiaomi-constitution-of-a-two-tier-confidentiality-club-in-standard-essentials-patent-litigation-read-why-hc-considered-such-an-arrangement-to-be-against\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | [InterDigital v. Xiaomi] Constitution of a \u201ctwo-tier\u201d Confidentiality Club in Standard Essential Patents Litigation: Read why HC considered such an arrangement to be against the principles of natural justice & fair play","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., after a wholesome discussion, rejected the idea of the constitution of a \"two-tier\" Confidentiality Club proposed by InterDigital Technology Corporation, and instead suggested the terms for constitution of a single-tier Confidentiality Club. Factual Background Xiaomi Corporation has been sued by Interdigital Technology Corporation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":269929,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/12\/karnataka-high-court-writ-petition-by-xiaomi-india-premature-when-alternate-remedy-available-under-s-37-fema-1999-left-unattended\/","url_meta":{"origin":366482,"position":5},"title":"Karnataka High Court | Writ petition by XIAOMI India premature when alternate remedy available under S. 37 FEMA, 1999 left unattended","author":"Editor","date":"July 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Karnataka High Court: S G Pandit, J. declared the present writ petition filed by XIAOMI India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as premature as Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Management Act (\u2018FEMA'), 1999 provides complete mechanism to decide the alleged contravention of Section 4 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/karnataka_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=366482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366482\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/366493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=366482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=366482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=366482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}