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 … Patents Act, 1970, which is given effect from the date of filing of application for the patent under Section 53(1)(i), it is open to a party, who is opposing the patent to prove that there are no inventive

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 … 52, 54, 55, 56: A plant cell comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising...(and other dependant claims)  Claims 53: A plant tissue derived from the progeny of the plant cell where the plant tissue comprises a plant,

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 … 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 … and Controls (I) Limited v. Schneider Electric Industries 2002 (24) PTC 632 (Del) [hereafter referred to as … as it would seriously impinge on the period of patent itself.19. It was contended that by virtue of Section 53, the term of a patent is reckoned from the date of the application. The provision in Section 11A … 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

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. Vs. Novo Nordisk a/S

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

drug that would infringe a brand manufacturer’s patent. To facilitate the approval of generic drugs as soon as patents allow, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a brand manufacturer to submit its patent numbers and expiration dates, §355(b)(1); and … a brand manufacturer’s patent. To facilitate the approval of generic drugs as soon as patents allow, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments require a brand manufacturer to submit its patent numbers and expiration dates, §355(b)(1); and FDA regulations require a … resulting in a delay in the generic drug’s approval.           In 2002, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a study detailing evidence that brands … sale.” 21 U. S. C. §355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Such filing is treated as an act of infringement, giving the brand an immediate right to sue and resulting … two ways. First, it may submit a so-called section viii statement asserting that it will market the … scrivener’s errors. See, e.g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 (2001) (refusing to adopt

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 … Research Designs & Standards 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

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 … Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 15 of Letters Patents - whether appeal against Order of Single Judge to Division Bench under … on facts it was found that requirement of Section 189 of the Act was not complied with. Under Section 53 of the Act, service of notice of the Board's meeting by post and by certificate of posting were

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)

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 … 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 … learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 283 of 2006/applicant/plaintiff has submitted that as per Section 53 of the Patents Act, the term of the patent is for 20 years. As far as the patent

Novartis AG Vs Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients Pvt Ltd

Court : Chennai

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the term of every patent granted, after the commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (38 of 2002), and the term of every patent which has not expired and has not ceased to … of patent was up to December 09, 2019. In this regard, he relied upon Section 7(1B) read with Section 53 of the Patents Act.14. He next contended that the earlier consent decree operates asres judicata and/or as issue

Shri Sanjay Z. Rane, Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (Since Deceased Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 4 and 100A; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9(2), 18, 25 and 53; Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 - Sections 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act 1964 - Sections 3, 8 and 11; Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions, by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986; Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 - Sections 20, 20(1), 20(3), 20(4), 22, 25 and 30; Small Causes Act; Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981 - Sections 3, 4, 7(2), 7(3), 9 and 13; States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sections 52, 54, 57 and 69; Goa Land Revenue Code

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668

It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were … that in case the claimant puts a claim in writing to a definite and specific amount of compensation, Section 53 of the Act comes into operation and as such, procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code has … B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment

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

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7 Rule 1; Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)

from 20th April 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th April 2005. However, with the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the framing of the Patent Rules, 2003, the plaintiffs patent bearing No.186857 has been subsequently extended for … Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The failure to produce the assignment document as per Section 68 of the Act is fatal to the plaint and consequently, the plaint ought to be rejected under … We, therefore, see that Butachlor which was the common name for CP 53619 was discovered, even prior to 1968 as a Herbicide possessing the property