TEXT HERE NEWS
Never say NATCO to Bayer
Generic pharmaceutical company NATCO has been granted a compulsory licence to pharmaceutical giant Bayer’s patent for kidney cancer drug Nexavar in India.
India’s Controller of Patents PH Kurian granted NATCO’s compulsory licence application on March 9.
NATCO filed its application for the Nexavar patent in July 2011 under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970, on three grounds.
It argued that Bayer did not supply sufficient Nexavar to meet demand for the drug in India. It also argued that Bayer did not sell Nexavar at a reasonable, affordable price in India and that it did not ‘work’ the patented invention as required under the act.
After 18 hours of hearings, Kurian concluded that NATCO’s application for a compulsory licence could be granted on all three grounds.
He found that Bayer supplied enough Nexavar for only 2 percent of Indian patients who needed it. He also found that Bayer prices the drug at approximately $5700 in India for a month’s course, which is too expensive “beyond doubt”.
Finally, he said that importing Nexavar did not amount to working the drug in India, adding that Bayer failed to grant a voluntary licence on reasonable terms to anyone, including NATCO, who could work the drug in the country.
Remfry & Sagar managing partner Ashwin Julka commented: “Importations not qualifying as ‘working’ in India is likely to raise serious concerns amongst the patent holders. We are of the opinion that it is unlikely that an application for compulsory licence on this ground alone would find favour with the decision-makers. Perhaps, it is time for this issue to be tested before a court of law so that the rules of the game can be settled.”
Kurian imposed several obligations on NATCO and its use of the compulsory licence to Nexavar.
T ese include a royalty rate of 6 percent on net sales of NATCO’s generic version of Nexavar, which must be paid to Bayer per fi nancial quarter, and that NATCO’s generic version must cost no more than $180 for a month’s course.
In a statement, NATCO said it “welcomes” the decision. It added: “This opens up a new
6 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012
www.worldipreview.com
©
iStockphoto.com / doram
NEWS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76