Why Is Bayer Corporation Been Fighting With Natco Pavar?
Bayer Corporation has been fighting with Natco Pharma ltd. Over compulsory patent license granted to Natco in respect of Bayer’s Kidney and liver cancer drug sorafenibtosylate sold under the brand name Nexavar. The matter was on appeal before the hon’ble Bombay High Court ‘High Court’. Recently, the high court upheld the compulsory license granted to Natco and agreed with the findings of the controller of Patents and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that the requirements prescribed for the grant of the compulsory licence as laid in section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970, were fulfilled in the present case.
Natco had initially approached Bayer for a licence to manufacture and sell sorafenibtosylate, but when this did not materialise, …show more content…
The controller also observed that the patented drug was not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price as Bayer charged Rs. 2,80,000 for one month’s treatment with Nexavar. On the other hand Natco proposed that it will only charge Rs. 8800 for one month’s treatment with same drug. The controller further held that the patented drug has not been manufactured in India and observed that the requirement of working of a patent is intended to mean manufacture of patented drug in India and not merely importation of drug into India. Based on his findings, the controller granted a non-exclusive and non-assignable licence to Natco and Natco was ordered to pay Bayer a royalty of 6% of the net sales of the …show more content…
The high court stated that Bayer had not produced details of any reimbursement before the controller or IPAB or the High Court itself. As Bayer had chosen not to produce the best evidence to support its claim, an adverse opinion must be drawn against Bayer. Bayer’s program of providing the patented drug to certain economically weaker patients at a lower rate was categorically submitted by Bayer to be charity. In the case of charity, it was not open to any beneficiaries, leave alone members of public, to demand and insist on the charitable price being extended by Bayer. Hence the High Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of controller and IPAB on the point that the patented drug is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable
Natco had initially approached Bayer for a licence to manufacture and sell sorafenibtosylate, but when this did not materialise, …show more content…
The controller also observed that the patented drug was not available to the public at a reasonable affordable price as Bayer charged Rs. 2,80,000 for one month’s treatment with Nexavar. On the other hand Natco proposed that it will only charge Rs. 8800 for one month’s treatment with same drug. The controller further held that the patented drug has not been manufactured in India and observed that the requirement of working of a patent is intended to mean manufacture of patented drug in India and not merely importation of drug into India. Based on his findings, the controller granted a non-exclusive and non-assignable licence to Natco and Natco was ordered to pay Bayer a royalty of 6% of the net sales of the …show more content…
The high court stated that Bayer had not produced details of any reimbursement before the controller or IPAB or the High Court itself. As Bayer had chosen not to produce the best evidence to support its claim, an adverse opinion must be drawn against Bayer. Bayer’s program of providing the patented drug to certain economically weaker patients at a lower rate was categorically submitted by Bayer to be charity. In the case of charity, it was not open to any beneficiaries, leave alone members of public, to demand and insist on the charitable price being extended by Bayer. Hence the High Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of controller and IPAB on the point that the patented drug is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable