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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article