Search results
15 lip 2014 · Explore the legal case of Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors. Delve into the case details, arguments presented, and its significance. Gain insights into the legal intricacies surrounding this case and its potential impact on relevant industries or legal precedents.
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.
18 wrz 2022 · Facts related to the case Bayer Corporation v Union of India and Others. The active pharmaceutical substance “Sorafenib,” which is used to treat liver and kidney cancer, was patented in India by the Bayer Corporation, a German company (Patent No. IN 215758).
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.
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.
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.
Plaintiffs, thirty-six women, filed a product liability suit against Bayer Corporation and some related entities (collectively, Bayer), alleging that Bayer violated Indiana's Product Liability act and other state and federal laws in relation to a medical device that Bayer manufactured.
