NTCO Case: Natco Vs. M's Bayer Corporation

them as the Chairman of the Board. The Board will examine the notice of opposition along with the documents filed in relation thereof and submits a report to the Controller. The Controller, on the recommendation from the Board, will arrange for a hearing with a time period of minimum ten days. In such a hearing, if the Controller finds that the patent was obtained wrongfully, the patent will stand amended accordingly.
Renewal:
Section 53 of the Act provides that a patent will cease to have effect on the expiration of the period prescribed for payment of renewal fees. The period prescribed can be extended to a maximum of six months from the prescribed period. An additional fee as prescribed has to be paid. This renewal fee has to be paid
That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price.
3. That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.
It is essential that the applicant must have made an attempt to procure license and has failed to obtain the same for the prescribe period of 6 months.
The NATCO case:
The first move towards granting of compulsory license was made in this case of Natco Vs. Bayer. M/s Bayer Corporation is an internationally known drug manufacturing company, which out of many, held patent rights to a drug called ‘nexavar’ which is useful for treating liver and kidney cancer. Natco, an Indian company producing generic drugs approached the patentee for voluntary license. When this was denied, an application for grant of compulsory license was made before the Court. Subsequently Natco developed a process to develop the patented drug and received license from the Drug Controller General of India.
Thus the question before the Court was to decide if the requirements of section 84 (1) (a)(b)(c) had been met i.e.:
1. Reasonable requirements of the public had been met by M/s. Bayer Corporation?
2. Was it made available at reasonable affordable prices?
3. Whether the patented invention has not worked in
Vs. Yeshwant Bros. decides one aspect of what constitutes novelty. The plaintiffs had been assigned an Indian Patent for safety razor blades by one Mr. R E Thompson. The patent related to improvement in safety razor blades of thin flexible type having external cutting edge and a medial slot and which were intended to be bent for transversely and maintained in a position of curvature during use. Defendants, on the other hand, imported safety razors by name ‘Navy Blue’ manufactured by an American Company into British India. This the plaintiffs claimed to be infringing their patent for safety razor blades. This contention was denied by the defendants saying that the plaintiff was not at all the true and first inventor of the product and also denied the improvements made was an invention per