Bayer Group needed to reassess its strategies regarding intellectual property, as well as its emphasis on research and development. The Indian government had ruled against Bayer by granting a compulsory licence to a local generic drug manufacturer that allowed them to distribute a copy of Bayer’s blockbuster cancer drug at a fraction of the original price. This ruling demonstrated that pharmaceutical innovation could not be effectively protected by conventional intellectual property rights in emerging markets. As a result, the core of the pharmaceutical industry’s business model was called into question: If ideas and inventions could not be protected, was the there any incentive for firms to innovate? Would this victory for generic drug manufacturers trigger similar rulings elsewhere? Would the prevailing patent-centric IP strategies need to be adapted to emerging markets? Or would innovator companies finally have to withdraw from markets with weak IP protection?

Bayer Group needed to reassess its strategies regarding intellectual property, as well as its emphasis on research and development. The Indian government had ruled against Bayer by granting a compulsory licence to a local generic drug manufacturer that allowed them to distribute a copy of Bayer's blockbuster cancer drug at a fraction of the original price. This ruling demonstrated that pharmaceutical innovation could not be effectively protected by conventional intellectual property rights in emerging markets. As a result, the core of the pharmaceutical industry's business model was called into question: If ideas and inventions could not be protected, was the there any incentive for firms to innovate? Would this victory for generic drug manufacturers trigger similar rulings elsewhere? Would the prevailing patent-centric IP strategies need to be adapted to emerging markets? Or would innovator companies finally have to withdraw from markets with weak IP protection?