Bombay High Court upholds Nexavar compulsory licence

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Bombay High Court upholds Nexavar compulsory licence

The Bombay High Court has rejected Bayer’s challenge to the compulsory licence granted for its Nexavar cancer treatment drug

According to Livemint, Justice MS Sanklecha stated that the court saw no reason to overturn the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s (IPAB) ruling from last February upholding the licence.

Bayer has stated that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Bombay High Court decision is the latest development involving India’s first compulsory licence, which was granted in March 2012. Then controller of patents PH Kurian granted the application from generic manufacturer Natco under section 84 of the Patents Act. This says that a compulsory licence may be granted if (a) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the drug have not been satisfied, (b) the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or (c) the patented invention is not worked in India.

The patent controller found that Natco established all three grounds and he granted a compulsory licence with a royalty rate of 6% of net sales.

Bayer appealed the patent controller’s decision to the IPAB. Last February, the Board upheld the compulsory licence grant, though it noted that the patent controller erred in finding that a drug not manufactured in India automatically meant it was not being worked in India. The IPAB also raised the royalty rate to 7%.

To this date, Nexavar is the only drug that has been subjected to a compulsory licence in India, though several other applications have been rejected.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
Gift this article