The jurisprudential differences between the competition law and IPR has time and again understood as being contradictory in their intent rather than being supportive of each other’s objective. Competition law plays a conventional role by promoting market efficiency and preventing market distortions whereas, IPR’s role is to promote innovations by providing protection and rights to requisite IP holders. This paper aims to deal with the conflict between the competition law and IPR providing the legal tensions between the two and expressing the understandings of several Courts while considering case laws from different time frames. It argues that the two legal regimes might be separate in their functioning but the framework of both the regimes is to promote innovation and consumer welfare. Furthermore, it talks about how US, EU and India has dealt with the questions arising out of this conflict; explanation and understandings of the same, considering instances where in both the laws were involved and were seen to be as against the objectives of each other. The paper puts forward certain recommendations for the Indian legal system to seek an agreeable and enclosing explanation for each of two legislations critically analyzing the jurisprudential outreach in India and other countries.
