Public-Interest Compulsory Genome Licensing

Introduction

Public-interest compulsory genome licensing refers to the legal authorisation of third parties to use patented genetic technologies, genomic inventions or related biotechnology without the patent holder’s consent, where permitted by law and necessary to protect public interests. Such interests may include access to essential medicines, affordable genetic diagnostics, disease surveillance, public-health emergencies and scientific research.

The concept creates a balance between two important objectives: protecting innovation through intellectual-property rights and ensuring that essential genetic technologies remain accessible when exclusive control creates serious barriers to public welfare.

Compulsory licensing does not ordinarily transfer ownership of a patent. Instead, it permits specified use under legally prescribed conditions, usually subject to remuneration for the patent holder.

Legal Framework in India

The Patents Act, 1970 provides the principal framework for compulsory licensing in India.

Section 84: A person may apply for a compulsory licence after three years from the grant of a patent, on grounds that the reasonable requirements of the public have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reasonably affordable price, or the patented invention is not worked in India.

Section 92: The Central Government may issue a notification enabling compulsory licences in circumstances of national emergency, extreme urgency or public non-commercial use.

Section 100: The Central Government may use a patented invention for government purposes, subject to statutory conditions.

Section 102: The government may acquire a patent for public purposes, following the statutory procedure.

These provisions may be relevant to patented genetic diagnostics, sequencing technologies, gene-based treatments or other genomic inventions where access is restricted. However, not every genetic sequence or genomic discovery is patentable in India. Section 3(c) excludes the mere discovery of a scientific principle or a living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature; Section 3(i) excludes certain methods of medical treatment.

NCBI Bookshelf+1

Case Laws

1. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, (2014) 60 PTC 277 (Bom.)

Bayer challenged the compulsory licence granted to Natco Pharma for the cancer drug sorafenib tosylate, marketed as Nexavar. The licence allowed Natco to manufacture and sell the medicine at a substantially lower price, subject to royalty payments to Bayer.

The Bombay High Court upheld the compulsory-licensing decision. It recognised that the Patents Act balances patent-holder rights with public access, and that a licence may be justified where the statutory grounds—such as unmet public demand and unaffordable pricing—are established.

Indian Kanoon+1

2. Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd., IPAB, OA/35/2012/PT/MUM (4 March 2013)

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board upheld the first compulsory licence granted in India under Section 84. It examined whether public requirements were satisfied, whether the medicine was reasonably affordable and whether the patent was adequately worked in India. The royalty rate was adjusted, but the licence itself was confirmed.

The decision is a leading authority on the public-interest basis for compulsory licensing in India. It is relevant by analogy to genome-related technologies where a patented invention is essential to public health and the statutory requirements are proven.

WIPO+1

3. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1

The Supreme Court rejected Novartis’s patent claim for a modified form of imatinib mesylate under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The Court emphasised that patent protection must meet statutory standards and that the law seeks to prevent evergreening while promoting genuine innovation.

Although this was not a compulsory-licensing case, it is important to public-interest biotechnology licensing because it demonstrates that patent exclusivity is conditional on satisfying patentability requirements.

United Nations

Conditions and Safeguards

Compulsory genome licensing must not be imposed merely because a technology is expensive or publicly valuable. The authority must establish a lawful basis and satisfy the applicable statutory conditions.

Important safeguards include:

Evidence of public need: Demonstrate that the patented technology is necessary to address a genuine public-health or research need.

Proportionality: Limit the licence to the relevant patent claims, uses, duration and scope needed to meet the public purpose.

Remuneration: Provide reasonable compensation to the patent holder, as required by the applicable law.

Capability of the licensee: Ensure that the licensee can safely and effectively manufacture, use or distribute the technology.

Protection of genomic data: Licensing a patented technology does not automatically authorise access to confidential genomic information, biological samples or personal data.

Review and accountability: Licensing decisions should be reasoned, transparent and subject to appropriate legal review.

Under the TRIPS Agreement, compulsory licensing is permitted subject to safeguards, including adequate remuneration and conditions governing scope and duration. The Doha Declaration confirms that intellectual-property rules should be interpreted in a manner supportive of public health and access to medicines.

TRIPS and public health+1

Conclusion

Public-interest compulsory genome licensing is a legally recognised possibility where patented genetic technologies are essential to public welfare and statutory conditions are met. In India, Sections 84, 92 and 100 of the Patents Act provide mechanisms for compulsory licensing and government use. Bayer v. Natco demonstrates that public need and affordability can justify limited use of patented technology, while Novartis v. Union of India confirms that patent exclusivity depends on satisfying statutory patentability standards. A balanced approach protects genuine innovation while ensuring that patent rights do not become an unreasonable barrier to essential healthcare or public-interest research.