Letter questions the propriety of CCI’s participation in ASSOCHAM conference

The article was published in Tehelka on August 7, 2015.

A group of civil society organisations have through their letter to the CCI raised concerns over the imminent participation in the ASSOCHAM IP conference. The group comprises of bodies like Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, IT for Change, Bangalore, Knowledge Commons Collective, National Working Group on Patent Laws and Software Freedom Law Centre, New Delhi.

These organisations have asked the chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Ashok Chawla, not to participate in the 3rd International Conference on Intellectual Property Law and competition Law organised by Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM). According to the letter sent by the civil society addressed to the CCI chairman, which is in possession of LiveLaw.in, two concerns were raised primarily demanding CCI to stay away from the conference scheduled to take place on 7th July at New Delhi.

“The participation of CCI at this conference raises serious concerns of conflict of interest,” read the letter. The primary concern cited was involvement of Ericsson in the conference. “CCI’s sharing of platforms with private actors would compromise the credibility and independence of CCI.  As you know the event partner i.e. Ericsson is currently facing three CCI investigations on matters related to SEPs and issues related to licensing of technologies on fair and equitable terms.  Ericsson is not only an event partner but also giving a speech at the inaugural session.”

Secondly, the focus of the conference, which happens to be currently part of CCI investigation, has ruffled some feathers. The letter states: “The themes of the conference clearly fall under the on-going investigations of CCI against Ericsson.  Participation of CCI in any form in a conference organised by the financial support of Ericsson, which is facing three CCI investigations, would clearly send out a very wrong message regarding the integrity and independence of CCI.”

CCI’s participation in the conference would be a departure from the well set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. “The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities including the one, which is facing the investigation,” the letter further added.

Civil society organisations also advised the CCI to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also the perceived conflict of interest in this case. CCI earlier ordered investigations against Ericsson based on the complaint from three mobile manufactures viz. Micromax, Intex and iBall. This was in regard to the discriminatory practices of Ericsson in charging royalty while issuing license to Standard Essential Patents (SEP), which are necessary to manufacture mobile phones and tablets.

Secondly, the focus of the conference, which happens to be currently part of CCI investigation, has ruffled some feathers. The letter states: “The themes of the conference clearly fall under the on-going investigations of CCI against Ericsson.  Participation of CCI in any form in a conference organised by the financial support of Ericsson, which is facing three CCI investigations, would clearly send out a very wrong message regarding the integrity and independence of CCI.”

CCI’s participation in the conference would be a departure from the well set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. “The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities including the one, which is facing the investigation,” the letter further added.

Civil society organisations also advised the CCI to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also the perceived conflict of interest in this case. CCI earlier ordered investigations against Ericsson based on the complaint from three mobile manufactures viz. Micromax, Intex and iBall. This was in regard to the discriminatory practices of Ericsson in charging royalty while issuing license to Standard Essential Patents (SEP), which are necessary to manufacture mobile phones and tablets.