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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

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