Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: patents amendment act 2002 section 55 · Page 1 of about 422 results (0.127 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Apr 22 2019

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-2019

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. … US have fashioned their patent laws to carve out such exception. It is submitted that the Canadian provision, Section 55. 2(1), enabling use of a patented product for generation of data and information to be submitted to regulatory

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 11 2018

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-11-2018

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 … Claims 44 to 47: A nucleic acid sequence“comprising...” and other dependant claims.  Claims 48 to 52, 54, 55, 56: A plant cell comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising...(and other dependant claims)  Claims 53: A plant

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 09 2011

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

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2011

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Dec 09 2011

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

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2011

Subject : MRTP

Patents and Designs Act, 1911, Section 2;Patents Act, 1970, Sections 2(10), 5, 10, 13(4), 64, 104, 107, 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, Section 104-A ;Patent Rules, 2003- Original Suit and Counterclaim-Revocation of Patent- Process patent for ayurvedic poultry feed registered by … So we do not pronounce upon those questions. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.” PUBLIC USER 55. What is the meaning of “public user”. In Carpenter v Smith (1842) 152 E R 127 (G) the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 04 2012

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

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

Subject : Land Acquisition

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 20 2014

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

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jan-20-2014

Subject : Intellectual Property

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 16 2008

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-16-2008

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 07 2004

P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2004

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(9), 3, 4, 4(1), 35A, 96 to 103, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 105, 105(2), 115, 117, 135, 217(1), 218D, 278 and 282 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 - Order 10, Rule 3 - Order 16, Rule 2 - Order 18, Rules 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 - Order 20, Rules 1 and 8 - Order 21, Rules 72, 90 and 92 - Order 33, Rule 7 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 41, Rule 35 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 49, Rules 1, 2 and 3; Constitution of India - Articles 133, 136, 225, 329 and 372; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; ;Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Legislative Act; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 223; India (Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1949; Independence Act, 1947 - Section

Reported in : AIR2004SC5152; 2004(5)CTC209; JT2004(8)SC464; (2005)1MLJ105(SC); RLW2005(1)SC19; 2004(8)SCALE601; (2004)11SCC672

in the Code by reason of Code of Civil Procedure amendment Act, 1976 or Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002. In any event the provision of Section 100A of the Code being not retrospective in operation, the right … all such laws. In Clause 35 of the Letters Patent, there was a clear provision that the Letters Patents are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council. It was accordingly thought that the Code … Cal. 361, Sabhapathi Chetti and Ors. v. Narayanasami Chetti (1902) 25 Mad. 555 and the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Jehangir Maneckji

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 24 2011

Pandraj Kunjilal Sadh (Deceased) and Rai Kumar Sadh Vs. Santosh Kumari ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-24-2011

Subject : Land Acquisition

the said Will. However, the learned Single Judge held that after the amendment of the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 1980 (West Bengal Act LX of 1980), this Court has lost its jurisdiction to entertain a testamentary application … of an Executor and is directed against an order dated 8th October, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His … the provisions of section 44, as the case may be,” shall be omitted. (7) In the proviso to section 55, for the words “High Court” in the two places where they occur, the words “City Civil Court” shall … this High Court by virtue of its power conferred by the Letters Patent possesses testamentary jurisdiction irrespective of the provisions contained in Indian Succession Act

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 01 2025

Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust versus the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-01-2025

Subject : Education

Reported in : [2025]9S.C.R.410

It is only in furtherance of its commitment to universal elementary education that Parliament enacted the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, introducing Article 21A and elevating the right to free and compulsory education for all children aged between 6 … counsel, a summary of the submissions on either side is provided hereafter. 55. Those opposing reconsideration contended that: a. There is no State legislation in … ‘right to education’ under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions, is a patent denial of a citizen’s right to education under the Constitution.” 77. However, in Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. … Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial