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

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

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article