Advanced Search Results

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)

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 firstly on 20.5.2003 and the remaining … into force. 10. Relevant for my decision would be to note that vide Section 18 of the Patent Amendment Act 2002, Section 25 of the Principal Act was amended by introducing clauses 'j' and 'k' after existing clause 'i' as … under any of the following provisions, that is to say, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61,

M/S. Philips Electronics India Limited Vs. M/S. Asian Electronics Limi ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Judge The Honourable Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman &Amp; D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents)

Mahendra Panmal Duggad JaIn and anr. Vs. Bhararilal Panmal Duggad JaIn ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 - Sections 8, 16, 17 and 26; Bombay Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1999; Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1977 - Sections 19; Bombay Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1983; Bombay Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1982 - Sections 3; Bombay General Clauses Act - Sections 7; Income Tax Act - Sections 27, 274 and 274(2); Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970; General Clauses Act - Sections 6, 15Z, 15Z(1) and 15Z(2); Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002

Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR699; 2008(4)MhLj803

made in the statute, for example, The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 etc. It is true that no litigant has any vested right in a matter of forum but when … Act, however, did not contain a provision like one in Section 3 of the amending Act, 1984 or Section 19 of the amending Act of 1977. Considering this omission in First Appeal No. 411 of 1983 Tukaram v.

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 … under any of the following provisions, that is to say, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61,

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)

at this stage of interim application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and Amendment Act 2005, which came into … the defendant in C.S. 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 … 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

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 … Appeal arising out of the suit for possession filed on September 9, 1992.3. In Chandreshwar Bhuthanath the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) held

Kamal Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10E, 10F, 53, 81(1A) 189, 193, 283(1), 397, 397(1), 398, 398(1), 399, 402 and 483; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 19(1); Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 4, 4(1), 100A, 104(1) and 104(2); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 100A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 100A; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1991

Reported in : [2006]134CompCas678(SC); (2006)5CompLJ511(SC); JT2006(7)SC333; 2006(7)SCALE668; [2006]70SCL222(SC)

:483. Appeals from orders.- Appeals from any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies(Second Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same … and 398 of Companies Act, 1956, Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 15 of Letters Patents - whether appeal against Order of Single Judge to Division Bench under Letters Patent is maintainable or not … by learned Company Judge, Calcutta High Court in APO No. 746 of 1999 and APO No. 759 of 1999 whereby learned Single Judge has disposed

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. … Both judgments deal with an identical issue, concerning the correct interpretation of Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”) which is commonly known as the ―Bolar provision‖.2. Facts in the appeal arising out of the

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

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 the Petitioners in as much as 3 other … Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioners applied for grant of Patent by an application dated 19 th September, 2002 for providing an image on an Organic Product, being flowers. The Respondent rejected the Petitioners'

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente vs.uoi & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

hand, and have considered the respective submissions.15. The deferred examination system was introduced in the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. Prior to that, all patent applications were required to be examined by the Controller of Patents under Section … treat the petitioner‟s application (7318/DELNP/2008) as „Deemed to be Withdrawn‟ under Section 11-B (4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (The Act). A further direction is sought to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take the petitioner‟s Form-18