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

Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Gift this article