Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Home
  • News
  • Decisions
  • Columns
  • Special Issues
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts
  • Books
  • Lawjobs
  • Events

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. Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit
    •      
  2. Another Former Connecticut AG Lands Law Firm Job
    •      
  3. Judge Quinn To Retire As Chief Court Administrator
    •      
  4. New Connecticut Privacy Guide Reflects Technology Advances
    •      
  5. No More Automatic Fee Waivers For Low-Income Litigants
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

In-House Counsel Go to Privacy Boot Camp

In-House Changes at News Corp Ahead of Corporate Split

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

Nine Tips to Avoid Starring in a Spreadsheet Horror Story

Snapshot: Tom Gelbmann

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • 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.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Interim Dean Named at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Water Works: H2O Kept Lawyer-Lobbyists Busy
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment

  • About The Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Contact The Connecticut Law Tribune
  • Advertise with Us
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media