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)

'patent' means a patent for any invention granted under this Act.The said definition itself was substituted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2085) with effect from 01.01.2005. Prior to the said Amendment, Section 2(m) defined 'patent' as,'patent' … Sandow Ld. v. Szalaly 1906 RPC 6, Patent Exploitation, Ld. v. Siemens Brothers & Co. Ltd. 1903 RPC 225 and Muto Industrial Company Limited's Application 1978 RPC 70 . He would also submit that if two interpretations

Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Patent

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 25(1)(k)(2), 26, 43, 59 ; Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005 - Rule 55(1)

to the grant of patent. Mr.Grover submits that the Patents Act, 1970 has been extensively amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. It is submitted by him that Sections 25 and 26 in the old Act have been substituted and … the petition. It is stated that on 29.10.2007 the Petitioner filed a representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 r/w Rule 55(1) of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The Petitioner requested … 1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent

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

a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.4. Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date … confusion with regard to pending FAO No. 293/06 filed by respondent No. 3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.5. Span … patent under Section 25(2). The patent was granted to the appellant on 22.9.06. According to the appellant, it was open to respondent No. 3 to

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. the Controller General of Patents and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970, [as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act)] before the Honble High Court of Delhi bearing No. FAO 136/2007 and CM … the Patents Act, 1970 (in short the principal Act) against the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 22.03.2007, in an opposition to the patent application No. 85/DEL/95 by way of third party representation opposition under section

Indian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(C), 25, 25(1), 25(2), 64, 77 and 159; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rule 2, 55, 55(1) to (6), 55A; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1) and 6(2); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Bengal Money Lenders Act - Sections 35; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 89; Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 - Sections 41(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 66 and 90; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 226

Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36

to as the 'said Act). In the said application it was contended by the petitioners that the Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed to make the said Act compliant with the obligations under TRIPS. TRIPS, signed in 1995, required … representation by way of opposition at a pre-grant stage to the Patent Application of the 4th respondent under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act). In the said application … for the proposition that in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should examine the conduct of

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

agreement, the Patents Act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the Parent Act (Patents Act, 1970). Between January 1, 1995 and January 1, … producing such substances will not be given patents…”85. Finally, after three days of debate (March 18, 21 and 22) the Bill, along with the amendments proposed by the minister, was passed by the Lok Sabha on March

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)

establish its case. In this context, 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 courts ' one of caution, ungrounded … 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 … 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 … name of the first Plaintiff. It is alleged that on 8.1.2001, under Section 68 of the Act, 1970 the Plaintiffs had entered into a Development … or in the specific formulae of EP 0566 226. The suggestion that that the Plaintiff used the

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)

Matched in: Citation LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

The Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 (17 of 1999); The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (38 of 2002); and The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (15 of 2005). These sets of amendments - apart from seeking to simplify and make the Patents Act … which no patent shall be granted under this Act." The proviso was subsequently deleted by Act 15 of 2005. Section 48 of the Act, as is in force today is worded similar to Article 28 of the TRIPS … the cost of the end product were contrary to the FRAND obligations. 22. Insofar as the Ericsson's suit against Micromax was concerned, CCI held that

Novartis Ag Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited

Court : Trademark

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge V Rengasamy, A C Patents, Designs