Bayer Corporation v. Union of India
Rule established
Compulsory licence under S.84 upheld on appeal; IPAB and Controller's order granting CL to Natco affirmed
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
- 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.
How to use it in an exam
- 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."
Source
Source: Delhi HC Orders
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.