PatentCompulsory licenceDelhi High Court

Bayer Corporation v Union of India

W.P.(C) 1323/2013, Delhi High Court (2014)20141 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Controller of Patents granted India's first compulsory licence to Natco Pharma in 2012. Bayer appealed to the IPAB challenging the CL on merits and conditions. IPAB largely upheld the Controller's order (modified royalty from 6% to 7%)
Issue
Whether the compulsory licence granted under S.84 should be upheld on appeal, and whether the Controller correctly applied the three statutory grounds.
Held
Delhi High Court dismissed Bayer's challenge. The CL was upheld on all grounds. The Court confirmed that: (a) reasonable requirements were not met; (b) price was not affordable; (c) import does not constitute working. Bayer's remedies were limited to the royalty terms (which IPAB had already marginally modified).
Principle
Compulsory licence under S.84 upheld on appeal; IPAB and Controller's order granting CL to Natco affirmed
Cite this

Facts

  • Controller of Patents granted India's first compulsory licence to Natco Pharma in 2012
  • Bayer appealed to the IPAB challenging the CL on merits and conditions
  • IPAB largely upheld the Controller's order (modified royalty from 6% to 7%)
  • Bayer further challenged before the Delhi High Court via writ petition

Issue

  1. Whether the compulsory licence granted under S.84 should be upheld on appeal, and whether the Controller correctly applied the three statutory grounds.

Held

  • Delhi High Court dismissed Bayer's challenge. The CL was upheld on all grounds. The Court confirmed that: (a) reasonable requirements were not met; (b) price was not affordable; (c) import does not constitute working. Bayer's remedies were limited to the royalty terms (which IPAB had already marginally modified).

Ratio decidendi

The appellate/writ jurisdiction will not lightly interfere with the Controller's assessment of factual grounds under S.84 where the findings are supported by evidence. The three grounds under S.84(1) are disjunctive; satisfaction of any one suffices.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Cite as the appellate affirmation of Natco v. Bayer (2012)
  • Shows that CL orders withstand judicial scrutiny when evidence supports the grounds
  • Key line: "The Delhi High Court upheld India's first compulsory licence, confirming that the three S.84(1) grounds were independently established."

Cite this

Citation

Bayer Corporation v. Union of India W.P.(C) 1323/2013, Delhi High Court (2014)

Reported: Delhi HC Orders. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.