Bombay High Court upholds Nexavar 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

Bombay High Court upholds Nexavar compulsory licence

The Bombay High Court has rejected Bayer’s challenge to the compulsory licence granted for its Nexavar cancer treatment drug

According to Livemint, Justice MS Sanklecha stated that the court saw no reason to overturn the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s (IPAB) ruling from last February upholding the licence.

Bayer has stated that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The Bombay High Court decision is the latest development involving India’s first compulsory licence, which was granted in March 2012. Then controller of patents PH Kurian granted the application from generic manufacturer Natco under section 84 of the Patents Act. This says that a compulsory licence may be granted if (a) the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the drug have not been satisfied, (b) the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or (c) the patented invention is not worked in India.

The patent controller found that Natco established all three grounds and he granted a compulsory licence with a royalty rate of 6% of net sales.

Bayer appealed the patent controller’s decision to the IPAB. Last February, the Board upheld the compulsory licence grant, though it noted that the patent controller erred in finding that a drug not manufactured in India automatically meant it was not being worked in India. The IPAB also raised the royalty rate to 7%.

To this date, Nexavar is the only drug that has been subjected to a compulsory licence in India, though several other applications have been rejected.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
As competing firms come under common ownership, clients may care less about formal conflicts and more about how openly firms discuss them
Facing increased lateral movement and in-house competition, firms are investing in flexible billing hours and tailored career progression to improve associate retention
As the US reflects on 250 years of independence, patent lawyers say innovation is reshaping old hiring priorities, with firms seeking broader IP expertise over specialisation
Gift this article