Bayer Corporation Case Study

989 Words4 Pages
Bayer Corporation has been fighting with Natco Pharma ltd. Over compulsory patent license granted to Natco in respect of Bayer’s Kidney and liver cancer drug sorafenibtosylate sold under the brand name Nexavar. The matter was on appeal before the hon’ble Bombay High Court ‘High Court’. Recently, the high court upheld the compulsory license granted to Natco and agreed with the findings of the controller of Patents and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that the requirements prescribed for the grant of the compulsory licence as laid in section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970, were fulfilled in the present case. Natco had initially approached Bayer for a licence to manufacture and sell sorafenibtosylate, but when this did not materialise, Natco filed an application for Compulsory License under Section 84(1) of the Act. Under Section 84(1) any person interested may make an application for the grant of a Compulsory Licence under a patent to the controller on certain grounds at any time after 3 years from the grant of a patent provided the applicant had already made an effort…show more content…
The controller also observed that the patented drug was not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price as Bayer charged Rs. 2,80,000 for one month’s treatment with Nexavar. On the other hand Natco proposed that it will only charge Rs. 8800 for one month’s treatment with same drug. The controller further held that the patented drug has not been manufactured in India and observed that the requirement of working of a patent is intended to mean manufacture of patented drug in India and not merely importation of drug into India. Based on his findings, the controller granted a non-exclusive and non-assignable licence to Natco and Natco was ordered to pay Bayer a royalty of 6% of the net sales of the

    More about Bayer Corporation Case Study

      Open Document