Advanced Search Results

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

a 'patentee'). Ericsson contends that any issue regarding a claim for royalty would fall within the scope of Patents Act, 1970 (hereafter the 'Patents Act') and cannot be a subject matter of examination under the Competition Act. This, essentially, … of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 59. CCI is a body established under Section 7 of the Competition Act and performs the functions as mandated under Chapter IV of the Competition Act. CCI

Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industri ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Court Fees Stamp Act - Section 8; Patents Act, 1970 - Section 104, 25; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 115, 151, 152 - Order 9 Rule 7

of the learned Judge to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. In that view of the matter, I find that since the petitioners have a remedy under Section 115 … the counter claim under section 8 of the Court Fees Stamp Act. The learned Judge vide order dated 7.8.2010 has passed an order to the following effect: "The application regarding allow to claim the counter claim on

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : MRTP

of the plaintiff for the grant of Patent was duly examined in accordance with the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ and after being fully satisfied that the invention satisfied all … Chapter III deals with applications for patents. Section 6 provides for the persons entitled to apply for patents. Section 7 deals with form of application. Section 8 deals with information and undertaking regarding foreign applications and Section 9

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 … law. He relied on the judgments reported as Franz Xaver Humer v. New Yash Engineers (1996) 2 Del 791, N.R.D. Corporation of India v. D.C.andG. Mills Co. AIR 1980 Del 132, Boots Pure Drug and Co. (India)

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 … of lung cancer.11. It was pointed in the written statement that in terms of the second proviso to Section 11-A(7) of the Patents Act 1970, introduced by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (effective from 1st January, 2005),

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Mr. Lalit Wadhwa and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 24, 25, 25(2), 45, 48, 51A, 64, 64(1), 107, 107A, 108 and 124; Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 28; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 53; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 20 - Order 1, Rule 10 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : LC2007(3)192; 2007(35)PTC377(Del)

right to practice or use the invention. The plaintiff relies on the wording of Section 48 of the Patents Act 1970 and contrast the same with Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. While a patentee has the exclusive … Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.2. By

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

cancer would meet the requirements of section 3(d) and would have to be treated as patentable under the Patents Act 1970 also. In response to Shri Grovers reference to a declaration in the Ministerial Conference of World Health Organisation … on anticipation by referring to prior published articles namely, Cancer Research (1996), Blood (both of 1997) [see paragraph 7(3) above] he submitted that the substance disclosed in these three articles was a salt of imatinib, namely, imatinib

Chemtura Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 11A(7), 12, 13(4), 25, 47 and 48, 48(1), 48(2), 53, 64, 64(1), 68, 69, 107 and 156; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rules 12(1), 12(3), 15 and 25

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)

Organisation (RDSO.). 10. According to the Plaintiff by virtue of Section 48 read with Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act.) the Plaintiff's Patent Certificate No. 213608 dated 9th January 2008 is valid for a term of 20 … assembly under Application No. 09/407,053 on 27th September 1999 in the USA and was granted under Patent No. 7,083,165 on 1st August 2006. A corresponding patent application for grant of patent of the device was filed in

Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd vs Union of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

from PCT/CN2018/119908 dated 7th December 2018, along with a request for examination under Section 11B of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 [‘the Patents Act’], and corresponding rules of the Indian Patent Rules, 2003 [‘Patent Rules’]. Signing W.P.(C)-IPD 10/2025 Page … The Petitioner on 9th May 2021, filed Indian Patent Application No.202127020980 [‘Parent Application’], claiming priority from PCT/CN2018/119908 dated 7th December 2018, along with a request for examination under Section 11B of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 [‘the

Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited Vs ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Electricity

been impleaded as a proforma defendant in the suit in view of Section 109 (2) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The Patentee of the suit patent has been awarded several patents worldwide … keep the record of the said figures. It is stated that the said suit has since been withdrawn. 7. It is contended in the application by the defendant no. 2 that the plaintiff's exclusive licence is not