Advanced Search Results

Speaking Roses International Inc. Vs. Controller-general of Patents an ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002

Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR630; LC2007(2)75

claim is essentially based on the fact that it falls within the mischief of Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and that it is not an inventive step taken by

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(1), 3, 5(2), 11A(7), 11B, 12, 13(4), 14, 25(1), 25(2), 28, 43, 47, 48, 64, 83, 84, 92, 92A and 107; Companies Act, 1956; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3; Trade Marks Act - Sections 31; Essential Commodities Act, 1953; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 39, Rule 1; Drug Price Control Order

Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)

Register of Patents on 6th July, 2007. It is submitted that in terms of the amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 ('Act') in 2005, the product Erlotinib as well as the process of its manufacture stand patented and are … specification is yet to be disclosed for the drug Erlotinib' was 'completely invalid'. A reference was made to Section 3(d) of the Act and it was submitted that Erlotinib is a derivative of a known patent 'Quinazoline'. It

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3(d)(b), 2(1)(d), 133, 24(A), 25(1), 2(8)(10), 14, 5, 10; Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 20(1); Patents and Designs Act, 1911

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)? Does the product for which the appellant

Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 20(3), 31(1), 32 and 226; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 5(7A) and 8; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3; Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978; Specific Relief Act - Sections 42

Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153

both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, amended by Patents (Amendment) Act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. However, in the first writ petition there was an additional

Glochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 25(1), 25(2), 64, 77, 79 and 104; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13

& 5 of Complete Specification). To support this and also to meet the requirements of Section 3(d) of Patents Act, 1970 the applicants with their reply statement, have submitted the Stability study data sheet of bisulphate (Enclosure 5 &

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 2(1) 3, 5, 5(2), 8, 10, 11A, 11A(3), 11A(7), 11B, 12, 13, 13(4), 14 to 21, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 25(4), 43, 45(1), 47, 48, 53, 59(1), 64, 64(1), 68, 104A, 107, 108 and 117A; Indian Companies Act, 1956; Trade and Cosmetics Act; Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005; Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

established this ground. thereforee ,I held that the invention cannot be held non-patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. (sic) 70. The Defendant alleges that the claim does not sufficiently describe the inventive step, a vital pre-condition

Hind Mosaic and Cement Works and anr. Vs. Shree Sahjanand Trading Corp ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Patent Act, 1911 - Sections 26(1); Indian Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 48, 64, 64(1), 104 and 107(1); Patent Law; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : LC2008(1)402; 2008(37)PTC128(Guj)

as opposed to mere verification of what was already known before the date of the patent. Unlike the Patents Act, 1970, the Act of 1911 does not specify the requirement of being useful in the definition of invention. But … being any synergy amongst different integers and combination of known devices functioning in a known way. Hence, under Section 3(f) of Patent Act the invention is not valid one. The appellants' arguments against this finding are that the

Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. A.i. Chopra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 11A, 47, 48, 100, 100(3) and 107; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599

strongly urged the nature of exclusive right that is available to the plaintiff under Section 11A of the Patents Act, 1970. According to plaintiff, basic philosophy underlining the concept of patenting and creating exclusive right with solitary exception carved … the plaintiff. Since violation and infringement is recurrent, the suit is filed, as can be seen from para 39 of the plaint where plaintiff has referred to the cause of action.4. Insofar as specific grounds leading to

Standipack Private Limited and Another Vs. M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 9

Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)613; AIR2000Delhi23; 80(1999)DLT56

'patented article' and patented process as appearing in the provisions of sub-section 2(j) & 2 (o) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Act). Reliance was also sought to be placed on the provisions of Sections 9, 11 … and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391/1998: I.A. 9131/1996 & 1530/1997 in Suit No. 2428/1996; I.A. 1207/1997, 2588/1997 & 3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I.A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I.A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I.A. 9132/1996

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 37, 41, 42, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59 to 63, 66, 69(3), 74, 78, 84(1) to 84(5), 85, 86, 88, 88(3), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117, 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents Amendment Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 18 and 47; Patents Amendment Act, 2005 - Sections 1(1), 1(2), 23, 60 and 61; Patents Amendment Act, 1999

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

the T.M. Act, 1999?2. The question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated in the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 notified on 25th June, 2002 but various provisions thereof brought into force … effect the provisions of the said Amendment Act on 2 different dates. 3. As I would be referring to the date with effect wherefrom the … are maintainable and if yes, whether the same require to be transmitted to the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the T.M. Act, 1999?2. The question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated