Supreme Court Clarifies Effect of Private Settlements on Competition Law Proceedings in Ericsson–Monsanto

On 2 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) dismissed[1] the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) appeals against the Delhi High Court’s July 2023 judgment[2] that had quashed investigations into Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) and Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd (Monsanto) for alleged abuse of dominance in Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) and Bt-cotton technology licensing.

The disputes arose from Ericsson’s SEP licensing negotiations with Indian handset manufacturers and Monsanto’s licensing of its BT-cotton technology to seed companies. Both were alleged to have imposed unfair royalty terms and used injunction threats to extract payments from licensees. The Delhi High Court held that: (i) the Patents Act, 1970 is a complete code governing the conditions attached to patent licenses; and (ii) once the parties had reached a private settlement, the factual substratum of the CCI proceedings ceased to exist. The Supreme Court upheld this finding in the specific facts of the case, while leaving open the broader question of concurrent jurisdiction between the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).

A similar approach was taken in JCB India Ltd v. CCI and PMS Engineering Works (2024)[3], where the Delhi High Court set aside the CCI’s investigation and related search orders after the underlying design-infringement dispute was settled through Supreme Court-mandated mediation.

By contrast, in the GMR–Air Works case (September 2025)[4], the CCI continued its inquiry despite an out-of-court settlement, reasoning that competition proceedings are inquisitorial and serve a public mandate beyond the interests of the settling parties. This has been discussed in detail below.

Business Takeaway: While the legal position is still evolving, courts have generally treated settlements as extinguishing competition cases arising from private commercial conflicts. The CCI, however, continues to assert a public-interest role even in bilateral disputes. Businesses in technology, manufacturing, and IP-driven sectors should structure private settlements with both commercial closure and regulatory continuity in mind, recognising that the CCI may still proceed where the conduct potentially affects market structure or access.

[1] Supreme Court: Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd.  SLP.  No. 25026 / 2023, order dated 2 September 2025.

[2] Delhi High Court: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr., LPA 247 /2016 & Ors. order dated 13 July 2023.

[3] Delhi High Court JCB India Ltd v. CCI and PMS Engineering Works (2024) WP (C) 2244 /2014 & Ors. order dated 14 August 2024

[4] CCI: In Re: Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited & Anr. Case No. 30 of 2019, order dated 15 September 2025