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 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Section 66, Sub- section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 84, Section 85, 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 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Section 66, Sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 84, Section 85, Section 88,

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

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3(d)(b), 2(1)(d), 133, 24(A), 25(1), 2(8)(10), 14, 5, 10; Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 20(1); Patents and Designs Act, 1911

Act of 1999 thus complied with Article 70(8) and (9) of the TRIPS Agreement.68. Three years later the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No. 38 of 2002) came to be enacted on June 25, 2002. It brought large scale amendments … Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)? Does … promote and encourage technology transfer to least-developed country members pursuant to Article 66.2. We also agree that the least-developed country members will not be obliged,

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

Act of 1999 thus complied with Article 70(8) and (9) of the TRIPS Agreement.68. Three years later the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No.38 of 2002) came to be enacted on June 25, 2002. It brought large scale amendments in … Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?. How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)?. … promote and encourage technology transfer to least-developed country members pursuant to Article 66.2. We also agree that the least-developed country members will not be obliged,

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 … the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it;(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved

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 … the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it;(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved

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 … a serious question to be tried on that issue. In Hexal Australia Pty Ltd. v. Roche Therapeutics Inc. 66 IPR 325 it was held that where the validity of a patent is raised in interlocutory proceedings, the

Subuthi Finance Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Chennai)473

clear that there had been no specific effect that the amendment effected to Section 158BB in the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st July, 1995, would be applicable to the instant case as the block period covered ten years … Court. Now, we will go through the newly inserted Section 154(1A) of the Act by the Direct Taxes Amendment Act, 1964, w.e.f. 6th Oct., 1964, which takes care of the situation where any matter has been considered and … M/s Duckfin International Ltd. which were installed at the cost of Rs. 66 lakhs each. The same is stated to have been entered into by … that there is no mistake apparent from record, which is obvious and patent, and he further reasoned that, "Suffice it to say that this is

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. … AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and