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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
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
Gift this article