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 … Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88(3), Section 89, Section

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 … Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88(3), Section 89, Section

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)

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 … but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals” 61. Monsanto argues that products of biotechnology are not excluded from patenting under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act.

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 … the claim for the process of emulsification must necessarily fail. Under sec. 61(1)(d), a patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject of

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

Court : Karnataka

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 … of the active agent Butachlor and the claim for the process of emulsification must necessarily fail. Under sec. 61(1)(d), a patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject of any claim of the complete specification

K K Bansal vs Koninklijke Electronics Nv

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

same submission before us.135. This submission cannot sustain, for the simple reason thatSection 107A(b) was amended, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 20 May 2003, to do away with the requirement of the dealer, from whom the … PW-2/6 and PW-2/7 were never produced or proved. PW-2/6A and PW- Inasmuch as no application as required by Sections 63 to 6528 28 63. Secondary evidence.-Secondary evidence means and includes-(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter … Co.33. The Bansals31 2017 SCC OnLine US SC 9 32 553 U.S. 617 (2008) 33 316 U.S. 241 (1942) KUMAR RFA(OS)(COMM) 17/2018 and another connected

Rajesh Bansal vs Koninklijke Philips Electronics N V

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

same submission before us.135. This submission cannot sustain, for the simple reason thatSection 107A(b) was amended, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, with effect from 20 May 2003, to do away with the requirement of the dealer, from whom the … PW-2/6 and PW-2/7 were never produced or proved. PW-2/6A and PW- Inasmuch as no application as required by Sections 63 to 6528 28 63. Secondary evidence.-Secondary evidence means and includes-(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter … Co.33. The Bansals31 2017 SCC OnLine US SC 9 32 553 U.S. 617 (2008) 33 316 U.S. 241 (1942) KUMAR RFA(OS)(COMM) 17/2018 and another connected

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

P.V. Raghavender Rao Vs. Vasavi Coop. Urban Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Banking

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 61 and 71; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 5; Banking Regulation Act, 1945; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2009(7)ALT702

Apex Court judgment the jurisdiction remains the same and there is no amendment of any law. It is only an interpretation of statute and there … (MCS Act, 1960) the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies act, 1964 (APCS Act, 1964) and the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act, 2002) transacting the business of banking, do not fall within the meaning of 'banking company' as … of the Respondent Bank and Ors. declared that the Registrar/DR/OSD had no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes under Section 61 and 71 of the APCS Act, 1964. In view of the above judgment, the appeal in CTA No. … the Registrar on any claim or application of a Cooperative Bank, is patently and inherently without jurisdiction, null, void and in operative. Hence, the appeal