Compulsory Licensing of Patents: Balancing Innovation and Access

Intellectual Property Section 84 Section 92 Section 92A Section 100 Article 31
Veritect
Veritect AI
Deep Research Agent
7 min read

Executive Summary

Compulsory licensing enables governments to authorize third parties to use patented inventions without patentee consent, balancing IP rights with public interest. India's landmark Natco case established a global precedent:

  • Statutory basis: Sections 84, 92 of Patents Act
  • Grounds: Non-working, public health, national emergency
  • Landmark case: Natco Pharma v. Bayer (2012)
  • Royalty standard: Adequate remuneration to patentee
  • Global impact: Model for developing nations
  • Pharmaceutical focus: Medicine access priority

This guide examines compulsory licensing provisions, procedures, and jurisprudence.

1. Statutory Framework

Section 84 - Compulsory Licensing on Application

Any person may apply for compulsory license after 3 years from patent grant on grounds:

Ground Requirement
Non-satisfaction of demand Reasonable requirements not met
Non-availability Public not reasonably provided
Pricing Not reasonably affordable
Non-working Not worked in India

Section 92 - Special Provisions

Circumstance Effect
National emergency Automatic grant possible
Extreme urgency Expedited process
Public non-commercial use Government use

2. Grounds Analysis

Reasonable Requirements Not Satisfied

Factor Assessment
Demand analysis Market requirements
Supply assessment Production adequacy
Trade impact Export/import balance
Related industry Downstream effects

Not Available at Reasonable Price

Consideration Evaluation
Affordability Indian economic conditions
Comparison Prices in other countries
Per capita income Purchasing power
Healthcare context Medicine pricing

Not Worked in India

Element Requirement
Working Manufacturing in India
Importation Not considered working
Evidence Form 27 declarations
Three-year period After grant

3. Natco v. Bayer Landmark Case

Background

Aspect Detail
Drug Sorafenib (Nexavar) - cancer medicine
Patent holder Bayer Corporation
Applicant Natco Pharma Ltd.
Price comparison Bayer: Rs. 2.8 lakh/month; Natco: Rs. 8,800/month

Controller's Findings

Ground Finding
Reasonable requirements Not satisfied - only 2% demand met
Reasonable price Not available - unaffordable for Indian patients
Non-working Not worked in India - only imported

Terms of License

Term Specification
Royalty 6% of net sales to Bayer
Supply obligation 600 patients free annually
Price cap Rs. 8,800/month
Export restrictions Cannot export to non-TRIPS countries

4. IPAB Appeal Outcome

Bayer's Challenge

Argument Tribunal Response
Working = importation Rejected - must manufacture in India
Price reasonable Rejected - beyond reach of most patients
Demand satisfied Rejected - 2% is insufficient
Royalty too low Increased to 7%

Modified Terms

Modification Change
Royalty rate Increased from 6% to 7%
Other terms Substantially maintained
Validity Compulsory license upheld

5. Application Procedure

Filing Requirements

Document Content
Application Form Prescribed format
Grounds statement Specific grounds relied upon
Evidence Supporting documentation
Draft license terms Proposed conditions
Fees Prescribed application fee

Timeline

Stage Period
Filing After 3 years from grant
Notice to patentee Within prescribed time
Opposition Patentee response
Hearing Controller's examination
Decision Within reasonable time

6. License Terms

Royalty Determination

Factor Consideration
Adequate remuneration TRIPS requirement
Economic circumstances Indian context
R&D investment Patentee's costs
Public interest Access considerations

Standard Conditions

Condition Purpose
Non-exclusive Others may also apply
Non-assignable Cannot transfer license
Predominant supply Indian market focus
Working requirement Must actually work patent

7. Export Under Compulsory License

Pre-2005 Position

Restriction Effect
Domestic supply Primary purpose
Export limited Only to countries with insufficient capacity

TRIPS Paragraph 6 Implementation

Provision Application
Section 92A Export to countries with health emergencies
Eligible countries LDCs and countries with insufficient capacity
Notification To TRIPS Council

8. Government Use

Section 100 - Use for Government

Aspect Provision
Authority Central Government
Purpose Public purpose
Remuneration Adequate to patentee
Process Administrative decision

Government Use vs. Compulsory License

Feature Compulsory License Government Use
Applicant Third party Government
Process Application Administrative
Grounds Section 84 Public purpose
Terms Controller-set Negotiated

9. TRIPS Compliance

Article 31 Requirements

Requirement Indian Compliance
Individual merit Case-by-case assessment
Prior negotiation Required before application
Remuneration Adequate royalty
Judicial review Appeal to IPAB/High Court
Predominant supply Domestic market focus

India's Position

Argument Basis
TRIPS flexibility Doha Declaration
Public health Essential medicines access
Developing country Special provisions
Sovereign right Compulsory licensing

10. Post-Natco Developments

Subsequent Applications

Case Outcome
Bristol-Myers (Dasatinib) Pending/withdrawn
Roche (Trastuzumab) Application considered
AbbVie (Lopinavir/Ritonavir) COVID context

Industry Response

Response Effect
Voluntary licensing Increased post-Natco
Price reductions Pre-emptive pricing
Local manufacturing Expanded partnerships

11. Compliance Checklist

For Applicants

  • Confirm 3-year period from grant
  • Attempt voluntary license negotiations
  • Document negotiation efforts
  • Gather evidence of non-working
  • Prepare affordability analysis
  • Calculate demand/supply gap
  • Propose reasonable royalty

For Patent Holders

  • File Form 27 working statements
  • Document domestic manufacturing
  • Maintain pricing justification
  • Prepare supply data
  • Consider voluntary licenses
  • Monitor competitor applications

12. Key Takeaways for Practitioners

  1. Three Grounds: Non-satisfaction, unaffordable price, non-working.

  2. Working Means Manufacturing: Importation is not working under Indian law.

  3. Natco Sets Precedent: 97% price reduction upheld as reasonable.

  4. Royalty Standard: Adequate remuneration, typically 5-7%.

  5. Prior Negotiation Required: Good faith efforts before application.

  6. TRIPS Compliant: Indian provisions within TRIPS flexibilities.

  7. Voluntary Response: Industry often preempts with licenses.

Conclusion

Compulsory licensing represents India's commitment to balancing patent rights with public access, particularly for essential medicines. The Natco judgment established a landmark precedent that continues to influence both domestic and international pharmaceutical policy. Understanding this framework is essential for practitioners advising on patent strategy, public health access, and pharmaceutical market entry in India.

Written by
Veritect. AI
Deep Research Agent
Grounded in millions of verified judgments sourced directly from authoritative Indian courts — Supreme Court & all 25 High Courts.
About Veritect

AI research & drafting, purpose-built for Indian litigation.

Veritect indexes 5 million+ judgments from the Supreme Court of India and all 25 High Courts, 1,000+ Central and State bare acts, and 50,000+ statutory sections — including the new BNS, BNSS, and BSA codes.

Built for Indian courts. Trusted by litigation practices from solo chambers to full-service firms.

Try Veritect free