IP Intelligence › Case Explainers › India’s first compulsory licence, upheld
Case in 90 seconds
India’s first compulsory licence, upheld
Bombay High Court · 2014 · 2014 (60) PTC 277 (Bom), decided 15 July 2014
What happened
The Controller granted India's first compulsory licence over a patented cancer medicine. The patentee challenged it, unsuccessfully, through the IPAB and then the High Court.
What the fight was about
Whether the three statutory grounds were made out: that the reasonable requirements of the public were not satisfied, that the invention was not available at a reasonably affordable price, and that it was not worked in the territory of India.
What the court decided
The compulsory licence was upheld on all three grounds. On public requirements, the Court held that for a medicine, supply to an adequate extent means supply to the fullest extent - a fraction of the patient population is not enough. On price, a patient assistance programme was treated as charity rather than market availability. On working, the Court held that working need not invariably mean local manufacture, but a patentee relying on importation must justify why the invention is not manufactured in India. The royalty was set as a percentage of net sales.
Why an inventor should care
A patent in India carries an expectation that the invention will actually reach the market here. Holding a right and not supplying it is a statutory ground for someone else being allowed to.
What a patent professional should take from it
The reasoning matters beyond pharmaceuticals. It connects directly to the statement of working obligation under section 146 - those statements are public, and non-working in India is a compulsory licence ground.
In India, a patent you do not work is a patent someone else can ask to work.
Find this judgment in our case law database ›
This is an editorial case note prepared by Ragulika IP - a summary of a decision, not the text of the judgment, and not authority. Read the judgment itself before relying on any point.
Sources & further reading
Related
Compulsory licence
A licence granted by the Controller to a third party, without the patentee's consent, on an application made after three years from grant, on grounds including that …
Statement of working
A statement filed on Form 27 telling the Patent Office whether a granted patent has been worked in India, and if not, why not.
The working statement nobody filed
India requires patentees and licensees to tell the Patent Office whether a patent has been worked in India. The obligation moved from annual to once every three fina…
Not sure whether this applies to your invention?
The honest answer usually needs someone to look at your actual disclosure, your timeline and the prior art. That is a conversation, not an article.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.