On January 31, 2020, CCI dismissed a complaint filed by InPhase Power Technologies Private Limited (‘InPhase’) against ABB India Limited (‘ABB’) for allegedly abusing their dominant position in the market[1].

InPhase relied on a report of Ken Research (2015) to allege that ABB was dominant in the relevant market of ‘manufacture and sale of Power Quality Compensators (‘PQC’) with Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (‘IGBT’) technology for low voltage i.e., below 1000V in India’. ABB abused its dominant position by instituting criminal and civil litigation with mala fide intention in order to stop InPhase from doing business. Further, ABB informed its customers/suppliers that InPhase is an illegal and sham company against which legal proceedings had been initiated. Further, since ABB’s customers were dependent on it, they were compelled to purchase ABB’s power quality products and stop dealing with InPhase. Accordingly, InPhase alleged that ABB abused its dominant position by acting in contravention of: (i) Section 4(2)(b)(i) (limiting or restricting the production of goods or services); (ii) Section 4(2)(b)(ii) (limiting or restricting technical or scientific development); (iii) Section 4(2)(c) (denial of market access); and (iv) Section 4(2)(e) (leveraging dominance in one market to enter or protect another market).

After submission of the DG report, InPhase argued that the relevant market had been defined incorrectly. CCI allowed InPhase and ABB to cross examine witnesses whose statements had been relied on by the DG. In the supplementary DG report, the DG concluded that the cross-examinations did not reveal anything new that required revisiting the original findings in the DG’s report on delineation of the relevant market, assessment of dominance or its abuse.

CCI defined the relevant market as ‘Market for manufacture and sale of IGBT based Power Quality Solutions (‘PQS’) for less than 1kV usage in India’, on the basis of the differences between cost, technology, intended use, performance etc., of IGBT and non-IGBT based PQS. The DG and CCI held that ABB was not dominant in the defined relevant market because: (i) at least three competitors had higher market shares in the relevant market during the relevant period; (ii) there are enough competitive constraints which prevent a player from acting independently of market forces; (iii) there was no information to demonstrate customer dependence; (iv) there were no entry barriers in the relevant market as could be seen from the entry of InPhase and other players; and (v) including traction in the relevant market, as contended by InPhase, would result in expanding the market size, resulting in reduction of ABB’s market shares.

CCI concluded that since ABB was not dominant in the relevant market, no case arises for an examination under Section 4 of the Act.

AZB & Partners represented ABB in these proceedings before CCI.[1] Case No. 12 of 2016