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

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article