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 … an application for revocation of applicant's patent No. 195904 before Indian Patents Appellate Board [in short, 'IPAB'] under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.10(f). In October, 2007, the respondent filed the suit in C.S. No. 979 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

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 … Patents Act, in any suit for infringement of patent, every ground, on which it may be revoked, under Section 64, is available as a ground for defence. It is one of the grounds for revocation of a patent,

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 … shape of the elastomeric member. Therefore the patent was liable to be revoked on the grounds mentioned in Section 64(1) (j) and (m) of the Act. 22. On merits it is submitted that the invention for which the

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 … a joint reading of Sections 107 and 64, alleges about its entitlement to use the grounds mentioned in Section 64 in defense against an action of infringement. It has consequently filed a counter claim for the revocation of … 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

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 … 62, that amended Section 117G is consequential to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Board under Section 64 which results to revocation of patent. Vide Clause 47 of Notes on Clauses attached to the Statement of

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 … disallowed and, therefore, withdrawn.28. Nuziveedu in its counter claim (CC no.51/2016) sought revocation of the suit patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act. Reliance on grounds such as absence of novelty [Section 64 (1) (e)]., absence of

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 … also put forth a counter claim and sought for revocation of the patent granted to the plaintiff under Section 64 read with Section 104 of the Act on the ground that Patent No.186857 was not patentable under Chapter

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: … Sub-section (1) of Section 107 expressly provides that every ground for revocation of a patent as available under Section 64 of the Act would be available as a ground for defence in a suit for infringement. 136. It

Tvs Motor Company Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 10(4), 11, 11A, 11A(7), 12, 13, 13(4), 25, 43, 45, 47, 48, 48(2), 57, 64, 64(1), 104, 104A, 104A(1), 107 and 107(1); Designs Act - Sections 51A and 53

Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)

Patents Act, in any suit for infringement of patent, every ground, on which it may be revoked under Section 64, is available as a ground for defence. The said decision of the learned single Judge was affirmed by … that the notional skilled man would have. (d) According to the learned senior counsel by virtue of the amendment to Section 48 (2) (a) & (b) a provision which was originally positive in its construction is now … making a flip-flop claim from the date of provisional specification made in 2002 and the final specification made in 2003 as well as the complete