Search results
15 lip 2014 · It held that the working in India would have to be decided on a case to case basis and there can be no general rule that when the products are imported into India and not manufactured, it follows that patented drugs is not being worked in the territory of India.
The Facts. "Sorafenib", an active pharmaceutical compound used for the treatment of liver and kidney cancer was patented by Bayer Corporation, Germany, in India (Patent No. IN 215758). Sorefenib is marketed worldwide under the brand name Nexavar.
18 wrz 2022 · Case Name: Bayer Corporation vs Union of India (2014) Bombay HC Writ Petition No.1323 OF 2013. Court: Bombay High Court. Bench. Mohit S. Shah, C.J. S. Sanklecha, J. Parties Petitioner. Bayer Corporation, A Corporation Organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, Unites States of America-100 Bayer Road, Pittsburgh, PA 1505-9741, United ...
14 sie 2024 · Key legal issues discussed. 1. Did the applicant (Natco) make efforts to obtain a voluntary licence from the Patent holder (Bayer) as required under Section 84 (6) (iv) of the Patents Act, 1970? Yes. There are two conditions precedent to consider an application for Compulsory Licence.
18 gru 2020 · Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom) BRIEF FACTS: The Petitioner had filed the present petition [1] being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’) dated 4 th March, 2013 vide which IPAB upheld the order of the Controller of Patents dated 9 th March, 2012 ...
German company Bayer Corp. (Bayer) (plaintiff) patented a cancer drug called Nexavar. India’s patent office granted a compulsory license to make and sell Nexavar in India to an Indian company called Natco Pharma Ltd. (Natco) after Bayer refused to grant Natco a license voluntarily.
15 lip 2014 · Bayer Corporation applied for and was granted patents for this drug in the USA, India, and over 45 other countries, giving them exclusive rights to make, use, and sell the drug for 20 years. The Union of India and Natco Pharmaceuticals Limited (Natco) were the Defendants in this case.
