Advanced Search Results

Astrazeneca Ab & Ors vs.p Kumar & Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

2005. It was not subjected to any pre-grant or post-grant opposition under sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970. However, in 2015 Micro Labs Limited i.e. defendant No.2 in CS(COMM) 749/2018 filed a petition for revocation of … published way back in the year 2005. It was not subjected to any pre-grant or post-grant opposition under sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Patents Act, 1970. However, in 2015 Micro Labs Limited i.e. defendant No.2 in … HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:08. 08.2019. IAs.3986/2018 & 5096/2018 in CS(COMM) 749/2018 ASTRAZENECA AB & ORS P KUMAR & ANR versus

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 23 and 53; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 12, 13(4), 43, 45(1), 48, 53, 104 and 108; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 11 and 26(1); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Copyright Act, 1967; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)

for ad-interim injunction restraining him from passing off is not maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. 6. In respect of the applications filed by the 4th respondent/4th defendant, the applicant/plaintiff has filed his reply. … The learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent/4th defendant has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 13(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The said provision says that the examination and investigations required under Section … would be the proof of direct imitation by others.34. Further in para 50-51 it has been held that once the subject matter, utility and novelty

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For

Micolube India Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Trading as Saurabh Industries ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (i) of sub-section (I) of section 2 of the Patents Act, 1970 Section 2 (h) defines Patent Office means the patent office referred to in section 74 of the Patents Act, … Aftab Ahmad and Ors., 2007(37) PTC 299(Del) f) Servewell Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Dolphin, 2010(43) PTC 50.(Del.) CS(OS) No.1446/2011 & CS(OS) No. 384/2008 Page No.19 o”28. In view of my conclusion, that the suit for

Ravi Raj Gupta Vs. Acme Glass Mosaic Industries

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1

Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)1045; 56(1994)DLT673; 1995(32)DRJ429

that of the prior art, which is the exclusive right of the plaintiff under Section 48(2)(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The defendant has started manufacturing and selling of glass tiles which constitutes an in fringment of the plaintiff's … shape and 'size in mould; Heating the said mould gradually in a tube furnace having temperature level of 500 degree to 800 degree centigrade in the middle of the furnace; Annealing the said pressed tiles (9) ANNEXURE-I

Lg Electronics, Inc a Korean Corporation Vs. the Controller of Patents ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

at Kolkata) ORDER No.111/2011 D.P.S. PARMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) This appeal is filed under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 10th August,2009, passed by the Assistant Controller of … been treated as abandoned u/s 21(1). 6. The subject application for patent 1191/Kol/2005 was filed by the applicant L.G. ELECTRONICS, INC. A KOREAN CORPORATION on 28.12.2005 purportedly as a divisional application of 489/Kol/2004 of 16.08.2004. Both of

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11B(1), 11B(3), 12, 12(1), 13, 13(1), 13(4), 25, 26(1), 43, 47, 48, 53(1), 64, 104A, 105, 106 and 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 48; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act; Patents Act, 1949; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8), 26(1), 51 and 53

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is a suit filed under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the … is called invention, or there may be some ingenuity in the mode of making the adoption'. As Cotton L.J. Put in Blakey and Co. v. Lathem and Co. (1889) 6 RPC 184 (CA) 'to be new in

Bilcare Limited Vs. Amartara Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 2(11), 3, 13(4), 25(2), 29(2), 32, 64 and 107(1); Designs Act; Patents Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8) and 26(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 2A and 4; Patent Law

Reported in : LC2007(2)42

improvement and an allied invention'. [Section 2(8) of 1911 Act.] It is to be noted that unlike the Patents Act, 1970, the Act of 1911 does not specify the requirement of being useful in the definition of 'invention'. But … of the patent and thus the Court would be required to examine this aspect in the present suit. 50. It cannot be lost sight of that the object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research,

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 … Filtering the solution - the filtrate (which is obtained after filtering the resulting liquid) is evaporated down to 50%. In other words, half of the filtrate is allowed to vaporize.Step 5 - Residue is again filtered at

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

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 … Filtering the solution - the filtrate (which is obtained after filtering the resulting liquid) is evaporated down to 50%. In other words, half of the filtrate is allowed to vaporize. Step 5 - Residue is again filtered