Case Study: Bayer Compulsory Licensing

1133 Words5 Pages
Some Famous Cases: 1) Bayer Compulsory Licensing Case: Relevant section: Section 84 (1) of the Patents Act 1970. In 2008 Bayer obtained the patent for the anticancer drug Nexavar. On March 2012, Nacto was granted the compulsory license for the manufacture and marketing of Sorafenib tosylate. Bayer’s tablet cost INR 2500 while Natco’s INR 75. The reason for invoking CL: Bayer did not market the drug for 4 years after taking the license. Due to lack of availability of life-saving cancer drugs to patients’ government granted CL to Nacto. Bayer moved IPAB against the order of granting CL to Nacto. Rare case of CL but a precedent in Indian patent legalese. Implications: Most drug companies will ask for compulsory licenses if the patent holder doesn’t…show more content…
A large amount of resource both in terms of money as well as time is wasted due to this. This not only affects the domestic business but also discourages foreign investors from investing in the country. Therefore, it is imperative that the IPR litigations are effective and quick. The following are the significant rulings of the Supreme Court which throws light on the approaches followed by the courts in India regarding IPR litigations. 1. Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 (12) SC…show more content…
The Coca-Cola Company Vs. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd Manu/DE/2698/2009 Coco-Cola, by a master agreement had sold the MAAZA including all rights, knowledge and IPR for India only. But the defendant files an application for registration of the trade mark in Turkey. Bisleri sent a legal notice repudiating the agreement between Coco-Cola and Bisleri leading to the litigation. Coco-Cola claimed permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trademark. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the existence of threat of infringement would entitle the court to entertain the suit. It was also held that the exporting of goods from a country is to be considered as sale within the country from where export occurs. 4. Novartis v. Union of India [CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009] The case started after the application by Novartis for patenting one of its drugs named “Gleevec” by covering it under the word invention mentioned in Section 3 of Patents Act, 1970. After a seven-year long battle, the Supreme Court rejected their application giving the following reasons. • The absence of any new invention or discovery of a new drug which requires filing of

More about Case Study: Bayer Compulsory Licensing

Open Document