Advanced Search Results

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)

patent in respect of Erlotinib and its process by application No. 537/Del/1996 on 13.3.1996. The Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs, New Delhi granted a certificate bearing Patent No. 196774 dated 23.02.2007, which was recorded in … establish its case. In this context, learned Counsel also argued that the nature of changes brought in by amendment in 2005, affording multiple challenges shows that the previous rule, evolved by courts ' one of caution, ungrounded … the decision in Telemecanique and Controls (I) Limited v. Schneider Electric Industries 2002 (24) PTC 632 (Del) [hereafter referred to as Schneider], where it was … three levels; first, under Sections 11A, 12 and 14, then at the stage of pre-grant opposition under … process of its manufacture is patented according to provisions of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereafter 'the Act'). The Central Drug Standard Control Organisation, Directorate General … Plaintiff. It is alleged that on 8.1.2001, under Section 68 of the Act, 1970 the Plaintiffs had

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. Vs.monsanto Technology Llc and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Trade (GATT), including the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, India, inter alia, introduced the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, in June 25, 2002. This amendment altered the definition of “an invention” under Section 2(1)(j) to include the … could not be restored and parties cannot be directed to perform the obligations contained therein in view of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Reliance was placed on Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Services

Abraxis Bioscience Llc a Company Organized Under the Laws of Usa of 11 ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge K.N. Basha, Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents)

Shri Rahul Sharad Awasthi Vs. Shri Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 3, 4, 4(1), 4(2), 5, 16, 16(2), 100A and 102; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Amendment Act, 1978 - Sections 97; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 7, 10, 13, 16 and 32; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 97; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 - Order 20, Rule 1; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6; Sphere of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F

Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706

the meanwhile the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted. Interalia by Section 4 of the Amendment Act, 2002, Section 100A of the Code (as substituted by Section 10 of the Amendment Act, 1999), was substituted thus:'100-A. No … presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath … case since the judgment of the learned single Judge was rendered on 14th February, 2003 which was after the date on which the amended provisions

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 51, 54, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69(3), 78, 84, 84(1) to 84(5), 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 116; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 47; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 23, 25 and 61

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

law and intended to create an appellate forum to hear appeals against orders passed by the Controller consequently Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 was promulgated on 25.6.2002. However, it was not brought into force immediately. It may be noted that in … confusion with regard to pending FAO No. 293/06 filed by respondent No. 3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.5. Span … range of ready- made diagnostic reagents made by clinical pathology laboratories. On 14.6.2000 J.Mitra & Company Pvt. Ltd., appellant herein, filed its application for grant

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)

above quoted application has been examined under Section 12 of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the first statement of objection of forwarded herewith the compliance. The documents noted in the margin are … has been placed on record. 7. According to the Plaintiff it has been granted patent in respect of 14 claims which define the scope of its invention. These have been set out in para 16 of the

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

ensuring the availability of the same in other countries. He relies on the Notes on Clauses of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2002 as well as the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report pertaining to the insertion of Section 107A of the Act. … stating that it was effecting exports to Brazil and Palestine; that application was adjourned. Arguments were concluded on 14.02.2017 and judgment reserved.8. After a detailed analysis of the contentions and the facts, the impugned judgment rejected Bayer‟s

K K Bansal vs Koninklijke Electronics Nv

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

same submission before us.135. This submission cannot sustain, for the simple reason thatSection 107A(b) was amended, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 20 May 2003, to do away with the requirement of the dealer, from whom the … decides issue (iii) in favour of Philips and against the Bansals. 35 14 How. 539 (1853) 36 316 U. S. 241, 250 (1942) 37 553 … PW-2/6 and PW-2/7 were never produced or proved. PW-2/6A and PW- Inasmuch as no application as required by Sections 63 to 6528 28 63. Secondary evidence.-Secondary evidence means and includes-(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter

Rajesh Bansal vs Koninklijke Philips Electronics N V

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

same submission before us.135. This submission cannot sustain, for the simple reason thatSection 107A(b) was amended, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 20 May 2003, to do away with the requirement of the dealer, from whom the … decides issue (iii) in favour of Philips and against the Bansals. 35 14 How. 539 (1853) 36 316 U. S. 241, 250 (1942) 37 553 … PW-2/6 and PW-2/7 were never produced or proved. PW-2/6A and PW- Inasmuch as no application as required by Sections 63 to 6528 28 63. Secondary evidence.-Secondary evidence means and includes-(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter

Novo Nordisk Health Care Ag Verseus the Assistant Controller of Patent ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

the Controller by or under this Act.” The amendment to the section 80 has been made by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 as given below:- 38. In section 80 of the principal Act, the following proviso shall be inserted at … giving elaborate observations over the citations against the novelty and also requested that an opportunity of hearing under section 14 of the Act should be afforded if the respondent desired to take any adverse decision to the applicants