Advanced Search Results

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 … the year 2000. By then, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 had amended the Patents Act, 1970 w.e.f. 26.3.99. Section 25 of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 dealt with opposition to a patent

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 also

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)

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 … request for examination of his application on 19.11.2010. The Patent Office, Delhi, however, by a non-speaking order dated 25.11.2010 refused to accept the said Form-18 as filed by the petitioner‟s agent. Being aggrieved by the said action

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 … to the specification made by the applicant, the learned senior counsel Mr. P.S. Raman would submit that under Section 25 of the Patents Act, the question of either pre-grant, post-grant or revocation will not arise for revocation of

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 … 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 … granted, post-grant opposition can be filed under Section 25(2) for a period of one year. This is

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. the Controller General of Patents and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

the opposition to the grant of patent. It is also to be noted that section 47 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 states that “for chapter XIX of the principal Act, the following chapter shall be substituted, namely, Chapter XIX … 22.03.2007, in an opposition to the patent application No. 85/DEL/95 by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970, [as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the

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 … Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897' preceding the said clauses. 25. It goes without saying that the grammatical meaning of the words is … 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

India Nippon Electricals Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : MRTP

Technical Member 1. This is an appeal under section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the respondent No.2.

Yahoo! Inc (Formerly ‘overture Services Inc.’), a Delaware C ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

there existed an appeal against the pre-grant opposition under section 116 of the Act as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 before the grant of patent. The counsel argued that there has to be a remedy when there is … USA has been refused in the matter of pre-grant opposition by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 2. The appellant M/s Overture Services