Bayer loses patent in Indian 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 2025

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

Bayer loses patent in Indian compulsory licence

India’s Controller of Patents has issued a compulsory licence over a cancer-treating drug, sorafenib, whose patent is held by Bayer

The decision, published today, means that Indian generic drug maker Natco will be able to produce a version of sorafenib, which is used to treat kidney and liver cancer, for sale in India.

Natco had applied for a compulsory licence under section 84 of the Patent Act. It cited three grounds: (a) that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or (b) that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or (c) that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

All three grounds were upheld in the decision signed by the outgoing head of India’s IP Office, PH Kurian.

A spokeswoman for Bayer told Managing IP that the company was disappointed with the decision and will now evaluate its options to defend its IP rights.

But it was welcomed by Médecins Sans Frontières, which campaigns for better access to medicines. It said the decision sets an important precedent.

“It means that new medicines in India that are now under patent – including some of the newest HIV medicines – could potentially have generic versions produced for a fraction of the cost, making them more affordable, and widening access to those who need it most,” the group said.

The licence requires Natco to pay a royalty rate of 6% of the net sales of the drug and the licence is in force for the remaining term of the patent.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article