Indian compulsory licence appeal begins in Bombay

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

Indian compulsory licence appeal begins in Bombay

Oral arguments in the appeal over India’s compulsory licence grant for Bayer’s Nexavar are set to begin today in the Bombay High Court

The patent controller issued India’s first compulsory licence for the cancer treatment in March 2012.

Generic manufacturer Natco applied for the licence under section 84 of the Patents Act, arguing that: (a) 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 India.

The patent controller sided with Natco on all three grounds, granting the licence with a royalty rate of 6% of net sales.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board upheld the licence in March, setting up the appeal to the Bombay High Court. Speaking to Managing IP a few days after the decision, then IPAB chairperson Prabha Sridevan argued that compulsory licences are not an attack on IP rights.

“IP laws say, ‘these are the owner’s rights, and of course this means ownership and control’,” she stated. However, Sridevan pointed out that all rights are limited by law, and compulsory licenses are simply a part of that law.

The Nexavar decision has raised concerns among international drug companies that it would be the first of many compulsory licences, a fear that has been partially realised. In January, the Department of Pharmaceuticals started the process to procure compulsory licences for three more cancer drugs under section 92 of the Patents Act, which allows the government to request a compulsory licence during national emergencies. However, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has denied the compulsory licence application for Roche’s Trastuzumab. Meanwhile, the decisions concerning Bristol Myers-Squibb‘s Ixabepilone and Dasatinib are still pending.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Magdalena Bonde discusses Abion’s AI experiments and reveals why an entrepreneurial mindset and a willingness to learn about a business are essential skills
Partner Ginevra Righini explains how she secured victory for the Comité Champagne in its fight against an EUTM application for ‘Nero Champagne’
Volkan Hamamcıoğlu joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss meditation, tackling deadlines, and taking inspiration from Hamlet
A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
Gift this article