Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > India Patent Ruling on Cancer Drug a Blow to Bayer AG

Font Size: increase font decrease font

India Patent Ruling on Cancer Drug a Blow to Bayer AG

By Lisa Shuchman Contact All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

March 5, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
bayer_logo

Related Items

  • India Patent Authority Has Big Pharma Worried

Big Pharma was dealt a heavy blow in the battle over compulsory licensing Monday, when India’s patent appeals board ruled that a domestic generic drug maker could continue to make and sell a low-priced copy of Nexavar, a cancer medication patented by Bayer AG. It was the first time the Indian patent authority confirmed that the use of compulsory licensing in India was legal.

Bayer immediately issued a statement saying it would appeal the ruling.

“We strongly disagree with the conclusions of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board,” the company said. “Bayer is committed to protecting its patent for Nexavar and will rigorously continue to defend our intellectual property rights within the Indian legal system.”

Under an international trade agreement known as Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), countries can issue compulsory licenses on certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations. Such licenses have in recent years been issued in Ecuador, Indonesia, Brazil, and Thailand. Last year, the government of India issued a compulsory license for the first time, giving Natco Pharma Ltd. permission to produce and sell copies of Nexavar for a fraction of the cost Bayer charged for the medication.

Bayer challenged the decision to grant a compulsory license to Natco, but on Monday the board ruled that the cancer drug, which fights kidney and liver cancer, should be available at an affordable price to everybody.

In its ruling, the patent appeals board did concede something to Bayer: It ordered Natco to pay Bayer a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar—an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had been set earlier.

This did not assuage the Germany-based company, however. The ruling will not only affect Bayer, but also will have an impact on other brand-name drug manufacturers, who see great market potential in India and other parts of the developing world but are concerned that protection of their intellectual property there is limited.

Monday’s order "weakens the international patent system and endangers pharmaceutical research," Bayer said, noting that patents give it a limited period of marketing exclusivity that help it recover costs associated with the research and development needed to discover new medicines.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) welcomed the decision, however. “It sets an important precedent,” said Judit Rius, MSF’s access campaign manager in the U.S. “It confirms that the Indian government has tools available to legally grant compulsory licenses.”

MSF is hoping the decision will lead to more compulsory licenses being issued for other drugs that are now patented in India but are too expensive for most patients. “We hope to see licenses for new and important drugs that treat HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and malaria,” she said.

Ruit said India’s generic drug makers are known for their ability to produce and market effective generics for a fraction of the cost of the Big Pharma companies that developed the drugs, and noted that the country provides more than 80 percent of all medicines sold in developing nations. “India is the pharmacy of the developing world”, she said.

This is exactly what multinational pharmaceutical companies fear. While this is the first case of a compulsory license in India, drug makers are worried about their patents in India for other reasons. The country has already revoked some patents granted to Pfizer, Roche Holding AG, and Merck & Co., for example. And it rejected Swiss drug maker Novartis’s patent application for the leukemia drug Glivec. Novartis appealed that ruling, and has been awaiting a ruling from the Indian Supreme Court. That ruling could come soon.



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Intellectual Property Appellate Board
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Intellectual Property Rights
  • Medecins sans Frontieres
  • Indian Supreme Court
  • Novartis International AG
  • Bayer AG
  • Merck & Co., Inc.
  • Doctors Without Borders
  • Roche Holding AG
  • Natco Pharma Ltd.

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Managing Relationships With Legal Project Management
    •      
  2. Best Legal Departments 2013
    •      
  3. Taking the Reins of Legal Department Operations
    •      
  4. Cloud Computing and Unexpected FCPA Jurisdiction
    •      
  5. Hiring Summer Interns? Make Sure You Do it Right
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Hiring Interns? Be Sure to Do It Right

ACC Weighs in on Arizona's In-House Pro Bono Rules

Ex-Dewey Partners Face New Foe in Firm's Bankruptcy

S&C Adds Linklaters Restructuring Partner in London
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Enron Sandbox Stirs Up Private Data, Again

LegalTech West Coast Wraps Up With Ethics, VC News

In Tricky Prosecutions, Judges Play Peacemakers

Ropers Majeski Tries to Re-Invent Itself
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Lawsuit Names Missing Fla. Attorney for Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Summer Programs Still in a Drought

Lawyer Not Covered for Alleged Malpractice at Prior Firm
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Firm Takes Another Hit in Bid for 'Unconscionable' Fees

New York's Martin Act Faces Test in Challenge to 2005 Case

Castille Testifies in Favor of 'Civil Gideon' Funding

Workers' Comp Judges Can't Fight Rescinded Raise
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Advising Clients on Weather and the Workplace
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Texas Sues BP, Others Over Deepwater Oil Spill Disaster
  •      
    • Subscription Required

'Follow That Escapee!'

Judge Who Tossed Defense Counsel Accused of 'Partiality'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media