• Free Consultation
  • Free IP Audit
  • International Brand Protection
  • About
  • Careers
  • Global IP Blogs
  • Contact
  • Login
Lexprotector.com
+1 – 888 890 6411 [email protected]
  • Trademark
    • Trademark Search
      • Indian Trademark Search
      • USA Trademark Search
      • EU Trademark Search
      • UK Trademark Search
      • Canada Trademark Search
      • Australia Trademark Search
      • New Zealand Trademark Search
    • Trademark Registration
      • Indian Trademark Registration
      • USA Trademark Registration
      • EU Trademark Registration
      • UK Trademark Registration
      • Canada Trademark Registration
      • Australia Trademark Registration
      • New Zealand Trademark Registration
    • Trademark Monitoring
      • Indian Trademark Monitoring
      • USA Trademark Monitoring
      • EU Trademark Monitoring
      • UK Trademark Monitoring
      • Canada Trademark Monitoring
      • Australia Trademark Monitoring
      • New Zealand Trademark Monitoring
    • Trademark Consultation
      • Indian Trademark Consultation
      • USA Trademark Consultation
      • EU Trademark Consultation
      • UK Trademark Consultation
      • Canada Trademark Consultation
      • Australia Trademark Consultation
      • New Zealand Trademark Consultation
  • Patent
    • Patent Search
      • Prior Art Search
      • Freedom to Operate Search
      • Utility Patent Search
    • Patent Drafting
      • USA Provisional Patent Drafting
      • USA Non-Provisional Patent Drafting
      • Indian Provisional Patent Drafting
      • Indian Complete Specification Drafting
    • Patent Filing
      • USA Provisional Patent Filing
      • USA Non-Provisional Patent Filing
      • Indian Provisional Patent Filing
      • Indian Complete Specification Filing
    • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Consultation
      • Utility Patent Consultation
      • Design Patent Consultation
    • Design Patent
      • Design Patent Search
      • EU Design Patent Filing
      • USA Design Patent Filing
      • India Industrial Design Filing
  • IP Enforcement
    • Violation Search
    • DMCA Takedown Notice
    • IP Enforcement
      • Copyright Enforcement
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Utility Patent Enforcement
      • Design Patent Enforcement
    • Amazon Brand Registration
    • Copyright Registration
      • Indian Copyright Registration
      • USA Copyright Registration
  • IP Management
    • IP Due Diligence
    • IP Auditing
    • IP Valuation
    • IP Licensing
    • IP Consultation
+1 – 888 890 6411 [email protected]

Dismissal of Bayer Appeal against Natco on cancer drug

  • Older
  • Newer

Dismissal of Bayer Appeal against Natco on cancer drug

A compulsory license is a legal instrument by which a Government allows someone else to manufacture and sell the product that has been patented by another company. Bangalore based generic company was the first ever company that have the compulsory license for manufacturing and marketing the patented drug Nexavar. In the year 2008, Bayer obtained the patent of Nexavar in India. They sold the patented medicine in the brand name of Sorafenib. The drug is used for the treatment of liver and renal cell carcinoma. Bayer was selling the patented drug at INR 2,80,000.00, a pack of 120 tablets. However, CIPLA, another generic drug manufacturing company of India was selling the same generic version Soranib at INR 30,000.00. Later on, CIPLA reduced the price of the drug to INR 5400.00. Bayer has filed a patent infringement case against CIPLA that is pending in Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court has not yet granted any injunction against CIPLA.

 

 patent infringement case against CIPLA  - Comp-License

 

In this scenario, Natco applied for a compulsory license of Nexavar. They got the license from Drug Controller of India for manufacturing and marketing Nexavar in Indian market from April 2011. Bayer Corporation appealed to IPAB [Intellectual Property Appellate Board] for a stay order against the ruling of Drug Controller.

 

Justice Probha Sridevan, Chairperson of IPAB and technical member DPS Parmar observed that though Bayer got the patent of Nexavar in 2008, the drug is available only in four metropolitan cities, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. Another interesting fact was that Bayer imported only 200 bottles of Nexavar from 2008 to 2010. The requirements of Nexavar are 23,000 bottles per month in India. This example proves that the drug is out of reach to the majority people of India for its exorbitant price. Government has granted the patent for fulfilling the minimum requirements of Indian people. The Judges also mentioned that According to Article 31 and 27[1] TRIPS of Paris Convention, Patented life saving drugs should be available to all and patent rights will be enjoyable without any discrimination whether the products are imported or locally manufactured. Therefore, both the Judge asked Bayer to take some proactive steps to avoid the issuance of the compulsory license.

 

In reply, Bayer lawyer said that the company spent huge money for the invention of the drug. On the other hand, CIPLA did not spend a farthing for inventing the drug. Therefore, CIPLA can sell the medicine at a reduced price. . Bayer lawyers also argued that the company had an effective patient assistance program for the financially weaker section of the society. In this program, the company provides one month’s medicine for INR 30,000.00.

 patent infringement case against CIPLA  - Comp-License5

 

However, the attached evidence of expenditure in Research and Development for Nexavar submitted by Bayer did not justify the claim of huge investment. They also could not establish their claim of patient assistance program.

 

Therefore, the chairperson of the Board and other judges were not satisfied in this argument. They said that the objective of the “TRIPS” is not the conditional subsidized offer of drugs. The motto is the availability of drugs to all the people without any hindrance.

Considering the arguments and counter-arguments of both the parties the judges rejected Bayer’s appeal. The Board also imposes some conditions on Natco for retaining the compulsory license. Controller had set the price as INR 8800/- for the one month’s treatment. Natco will pay 6% commission to Bayer and they will provide the drug at free of cost to at least 600underprivileged patients per year. Bayer also agreed to sell the drug at the price of INR 30,000.00 for one month’s treatment.

 

For more details, you may consult Lex Protector.

 

  • Categories
    Patent
  • Author

    Lex Protector

Contents

Get Monthly

Global IP Updates

Join our community of over 10,000 subscribers and receive monthly updates on the latest IPR news and changes from around the globe.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Request for March-in on Abbot Patent for Ritonavir, a drug for AIDS

Pfizer loses patent infringement case against Actavis in UK

Proposals on inclusions of the new articles in the Industrial design (ID) treaty in WIPO meeting

Subscribe Us

Quick Links

  • Utility Patent Search
  • Patent Drafting
  • Patent Consultation
  • Design Patent Search
  • Portfolio
  • Partner Portal Login
  • Global IP Blogs
  • Todays Trademark Blog
  • Todays Patent Blog

Services

  • USA Trademark Registration
  • UK Trademark Registration
  • EU Trademark Registration
  • Indian Trademark Registration
  • Australia Trademark Registration
  • New Zealand Trademark Registration
  • Canada Trademark Registration
  • Copyright Registration
  • DMCA Takedown Notice

Contact Us

  • [email protected]
  • +1 – 888 890 6411 +1 (833) 535-9144 (FAX)
  • 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, Delaware 19958, USA

In India - Bhubaneswar | Ahmedabad | Bangalore | Guwahati | Mumbai

International - United States | United Kingdom | Australia | Estonia

© 2012-25 LEX PROTECTOR. All rights reserved

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • DMCA

Quick Dismissal of Bayer Appeal against Natco on cancer drug