hide message

Welcome to the Resource Centre

We make it our mission to work with advocates in civil society, business and government to address inequalities of power, seek remedy for abuse, and ensure protection of people and planet.

Both companies and impacted communities thank us for the resources and support we provide.

This is only possible because of your support. Please make a donation today.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:

Bayer Corporation vs. Union of India [Delhi High Court Judgment]

Author: High Court of Delhi, Published on: 18 August 2009

Bayer states that Cipla’s generic version of Sorafanib, which, it is contended, is sold under the brand name “Soranib” would amount to a “spurious drug”. If Bayer’s contention were to prevail, every generic drug would ipso facto amount to a “spurious drug”, since they are deemed substitutes of originator (patented) drugs. Such interpretation is facially untenable and contrary to the intent of the Drugs Act...the present litigation was what may be characterized as a speculative foray; an attempt to “tweak” public policies through court mandated regimes. The petitioner, doubtless is possessed of vast resources and can engage in such pursuits. Yet, often, these attempts...achieve short term goals of keeping out competitors, through interim orders. That short term objective has been achieved, and the petitioner has successfully stalled an independent examination of Cipla’s application. Even though the writ petition cannot succeed, it would be a travesty of justice if the court does not direct realization of realistic costs, in this case.

Read the full post here

Related companies: Bayer Cipla