Advanced Search Results

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 patentee was having, an exclusive right to use the patented product, whereas, after the amendment, as per Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, it gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent the third parties

Dhanpat Seth and ors. Vs. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 13(4), 48, 64, 107(1), 107(2) and 113(4); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002; Trade Mark Act - Section 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 94 and 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)

argued by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners that Section 48 of the Patents Act, as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, confers upon the patentee the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent, from

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 … similar facts. 47. It was urged on the strength of the above decisions that after its amendment in 2002, Section 48 has strengthened the right of a patent holder to prevent third parties from infringing his rights and that

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (hereafter 'TRIPS'). 122. By virtue of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2002, Section 48 of the Act, which specifies the rights granted to a patentee, was substituted to read as under: "48.

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. … text of Section 107A, the learned single judge noticed the difference between the wordings of that provision and Section 48, noting that the terms “constructing” in Section 107A and “offering for sale” in Section 48 were not important.

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)

relation to product patents was a significant omission. This had to be viewed with the opening expression in Section 48 'subject to provisions of the Act' to mean that unlike in the case of trademarks and copyrights, the … 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

Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devastan of Paroda by Its Special Attorne ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915

100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st … of action. See Re : Joseph Such & Co. Ltd. (1875)1 Ch.D. 48. If the Legislature forms a new procedure alterations in the form of … on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as

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)

granting order of interim injunction.61. Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (amended Act 2002) with effect from 20th May, 2003) protects the rights of patentees. Since we earlier held that the patent … for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 283 of 2006 the said decision requires reconsideration in view of the Patents (amendment) Act 2005 under which, major amendments were effected to the Patents Act, 1970. The learned Counsel further invited the

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Surya Prakash Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(2), 2(14), 4, 4(1), 31, 34, 35A, 91, 92, 95, 96, 100, 100A, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 104A and 141 - Order 9 - Order 16 - Order 18 - Order 21 - Order 43, Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1877 - Sections 588; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1859; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1882 - Sections 588, 638 and 652; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 173 and 173(2); Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4A, 12(2), 19, 23, 27 and 30; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 54; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 71, 72, 107 and 108; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 39,

Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530

Constitution. After three years, Section 100A, in its present form, was inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. The last amended Section 100A reads as under:100A. No further appeal in certain cases.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any … Code of Civil Procedure, 1859. Similar provisions were made in the Letters Patents of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras. Clauses 15 and 44 … considered Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which permitted an appeal to the High Court, and Section 48, which gave finality to the judgment rendered in such appeal, and then proceeded to examine whether an appeal

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 … examination of his application since, post-publication of his application, the applicant begins to enjoy the rights conferred by Section 48 of the Act, even when his application is pending consideration and even though he has not been granted