- Asia
- Automobile
- Bangladesh
- Banking
- Biological Inventions
- bLAWgathon
- Brand Valuation
- Business
- Company Act
- Company Law
- Competition Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Copyright
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Counterfeiting
- Covid
- Design
- Digital Media
- Digital Right Management
- Educational Conferences/ Seminar
- Fashion Law
- FERs
- Foreign Law
- Gaming Industry
- GDPR
- GIg Economy
- Hi Tech Patent Commercialisation
- Hi Tech Patent Litigation
- IBC
- India
- Indonesia
- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property Protection
- IP Commercialization
- IP Licensing
- IP Litigation
- IP Practice in India
- IPAB
- IPAB Decisions
- Khadi Industries
- labour Law
- Legal Issues
- Licensing
- Live-in relationships
- Lok Sabha Bill
- Media & Entertainment Law
- Member of Parliament
- Myanmar
- NCLT
- NEPAL
- News & Updates
- Online Gaming
- Patent Act
- Patent Commercialisation
- Patent Fess
- Patent Filing
- patent infringement
- Patent Licensing
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Marketing
- Patent Opposition
- Patent Rule Amendment
- Patents
- pharma
- Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
- Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
- Pollution
- Protection of SMEs
- Section 3(D)
- Signapore
- Social Media
- Sports Law
- Stamp Duty
- Stock Exchange
- TAX
- Technology
- Telecom Law
- Telecommunications
- Thailand
- Trademark
- Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Litigation
- UAE
- Uncategorized
- USPTO
- Vietnam
Correct Interpretation of section 107A of the Indian Patents Act: Judgement in Bayer Vs. Natco & Alembic
In a recent decision, the Divisional bench of Delhi high court has dealt with correct interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970, commonly known as the Bolar provision.The ruling came as a result of two appeals made by Bayer Corp. Ltd. against the Natco Pharma and Alembic Pharmaceuticals for infringement of its patents … Continue reading Correct Interpretation of section 107A of the Indian Patents Act: Judgement in Bayer Vs. Natco & Alembic
Read more »First Compulsory License Grant in India to Natco
31st March, 2012 - 1:58 pm
Categories:
IP Practice in India
News & Updates
Pharma/Biotech Patent Litigations
1 Comments
The Controller General of India passed an order of compulsory license (CL) against Bayer’s patent on drug Nexavar on March 09, 2012, which is India’s first compulsory license and is resulting from India’s first CL application filed by Natco last year which was reported and discussed by us. The complete CL order is available at … Continue reading First Compulsory License Grant in India to Natco
Read more »NATCO FILES INDIA’S FIRST COMPULSORY LICENSING APPLICATION
14th September, 2011 - 4:38 am
Categories:
Patent Commercialisation
Pharma- biotech- Patent Commercialisation
0 Comments
Natco Pharma has filed India’s first Compulsory Licensing (CL) Application (in accordance with Section 84(1) of the Indian Patents Act) against one of the Bayer’s patented drug Sorafenib, marketed by Bayer as Nexavar for treating Kidney and Liver Cancer. Patent on Sorafenib is granted in India on 03.03.2008 having number IN 215758. This will be … Continue reading NATCO FILES INDIA’S FIRST COMPULSORY LICENSING APPLICATION
Read more »Bayer Vs Cipla
BAYER Vs CIPLA & UNION OF INDIA Does a combined reading of the Drug Control Act and the Patents Act lead to an inference that no marketing approvals can be granted to a third party for a drug/formulation for which a patent exists? This was a primary question before the Delhi High Court in a … Continue reading Bayer Vs Cipla
Read more »