Compulsory Licensing or Theft? The Bayer-India Controversy

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fras
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Bayer-India controversy centers around Bayer's cancer treatment drug, priced at $69,000 per year, which is deemed unaffordable for many in India. In response, the Indian government issued a compulsory license allowing other companies to produce a similar drug at a lower cost. Bayer contested this decision, claiming it amounted to theft, but lost in court and is currently appealing the ruling. The situation raises important questions about patent rights, compulsory licensing, and product liability in the pharmaceutical industry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of compulsory licensing in pharmaceuticals
  • Familiarity with patent law and intellectual property rights
  • Knowledge of the Doha Declaration and its implications for public health
  • Awareness of product liability issues in drug manufacturing
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Doha Declaration on global patent laws
  • Explore the legal framework surrounding compulsory licensing in India
  • Investigate product liability laws related to pharmaceuticals and their manufacturers
  • Examine case studies of other companies affected by compulsory licensing
USEFUL FOR

Legal professionals, pharmaceutical industry stakeholders, public health advocates, and anyone interested in the intersection of patent law and access to medicine.

fras
Messages
11
Reaction score
2
I'll preface this post by saying I have always had an interest in companies like Bayer and their R&D departments, so I found this story relevant as it touches upon R&D and patent rights. However, I know very little when it comes to legal procedures, and especially patents (intellectual property?).

What I am able to sum up is just my understanding of what is going on currently. Bayer develops a drug that doesn't necessarily cure, but treats certain symptoms of cancer, however, because of development costs, etc..., they initially charge $69k/year for the drug.

Certain segments of India's population afflicted with cancer cannot afford the drug for treatment. Being that $69k/year is not reasonable for India's government India offers other companies/agencies a compulsory license to Bayer's patent. This allows the allowed agency to create the drug and produce one similar to Bayer's product, but with a lower price tag than the $69k.

Bayer doesn't like this as it undercuts their initial price tag and possibly their profit motives, so the company contests this in court, and says, "if this continues, it is tantamount to theft! (I am paraphrasing here)." To Bayer's dismay, they lose in court and are pretty angry at the decision and are now filing appeals in the Indian court to get the court to reverse the decision.

Article: (The Economist article is more broad in discussion than Businessweek's. Businessweek's article is the main one.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-21/merck-to-bristol-myers-face-more-threats-on-india-drug-patents

http://www.economist.com/news/inter...nd-patients-are-desperate-them-arguments-over

I would like some help in understanding what is going on, specifically, the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
Does anyone know how this interacts with product liability? If Company A makes a drug, and it is compulsorily licensed to Company B, and it is later determined that it has a terrible side effect, is Company A still liable?
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K