Critical Analysis of Natco Versus Bayer: An Eye Opener in India

  • Devi. J
  • Show Author Details
  • Devi. J

    Assistant Professor at Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Pudupakkam, India

  • img Download Full Paper


With the passage of the current Patents Act, inventors were given an exclusive right to their inventions if they fit certain criteria, such as being innovative, beneficial in industry, and not obvious to others. The monopoly granted by the government is only valid for a maximum of 20 years. During this moment, innovative thinkers have a window of opportunity to profit from their creations. For those who can afford it, a patented drug that has been introduced to the market by the creator or patentee is a superior option. The price of these patented drugs rises as a result of the patentee’s strict monopolistic policy or control. As a result, those in need must choose between purchasing lower-cost drugs, generics, or none at all. Because they couldn’t afford more expensive meds, they had no choice but to accept low-quality health care. Because they couldn’t afford more expensive medicines, they had no choice but to accept low-quality health care. From the standpoint of society and morals, such a result is neither acceptable nor ideal. It would be better for the patentee if a special relief plan was established that allowed patented pharmaceuticals to be supplied at a low price in emergency situations for the sake of society as a whole.


Research Paper


International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 5, Issue 1, Page 2502 - 2511


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021