Advanced Search Results
Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...
Chennai
Aug-06-2007
Intellectual Property Rights
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 20(3), 31(1), 32 and 226; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 5(7A) and 8; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3; Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978; Specific Relief Act - Sections 42
(2007)4MLJ1153
known process results in a new product or employs atleast one new reactant.Section 3(d) as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 01.01.2005: The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJ. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...
Supreme Court of India
Aug-21-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation of the invention by virtue of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 29;that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is claimed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGlochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...
Mumbai
Nov-06-2009
Intellectual Property Rights
Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 25(1), 25(2), 64, 77, 79 and 104; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226
2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13
the problem considered was about the confusion arising on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in particular with regard to the remedy of appeal against an order rejecting the pre-grant opposition. Indeed, the … with the provisional specification at the Mumbai office of the Respondent No. 3, which was later on allotted Patent Application No. 413/MUM/2003A. Thereafter, on 22/4/2004, … were well known. Accordingly, the Petitioners filed a representation by way of opposition on 10/7/2008 in terms of Section 25(1) of the Patent Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)raising diverse issues.4. Respondent No. 1 filed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...
Mumbai
Dec-18-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(1), 6, 8, 10, 11, 11A, 11B, 12, 13, 14, 35 to 42, 47, 47(1), 47(2), 47(3), 47(4), 48, 57, 58, 64, 64(1), 64(3), 99, 100, 100(1), 101(3), 101(5), 103, 107, 156, 177 and 240; Patents and Designs Act, 1911; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2005; Patents Rules, 2003; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3(23)
2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479
force by way of ordinance, namely, Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2005 dated 26.12.2004 and ultimately was enacted as the Patents Amendment Act, 2005 which has made substantial changes. To the inventor a patent system confers certain definite advantages. The incentive for … and in fact being used for more than two decades ?(2) What is the scope and effect of Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) and its impact in the present case ?FACTS:4. The appellant … more than some improvement therein. According to him by amending Act No. 38 of 2002, the terminology new and useful improvement which was occurring in
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskF. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.
Delhi
Apr-24-2009
Intellectual Property Rights
Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(1), 3, 5(2), 11A(7), 11B, 12, 13(4), 14, 25(1), 25(2), 28, 43, 47, 48, 64, 83, 84, 92, 92A and 107; Companies Act, 1956; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3; Trade Marks Act - Sections 31; Essential Commodities Act, 1953; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 39, Rule 1; Drug Price Control Order
159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
that in terms of the second proviso to Section 11-A(7) of the Patents Act 1970, introduced by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (effective from 1st January, 2005), in case of patent applications filed under Section 5 (2) [which concerns a … specification is yet to be disclosed for the drug Erlotinib' was 'completely invalid'. A reference was made to Section 3(d) of the Act and it was submitted that Erlotinib is a derivative of a known patent 'Quinazoline'. It
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskF. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited
Delhi
Mar-19-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
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 … 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 … used for the treatment of cancer thereforee, a derivative of a known compound and hence not patentable under Section 3(d) of the Act.11. It is next contended that the patent does not reveal any obvious inventive step. In
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGlaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...
Supreme Court of India
Sep-10-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 5(2), 11B(3), 24A, 24B, 24B(1) and 78; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 21 and 78; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6; Ceylon Interpretation Ordinance, 1900
2009AIRSCW376; AIR2009SC1147; 2008(4)AWC3839(SC); 2008BusLR879(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN197; LC2008(3)131; (2009)2MLJ548(SC); 2008(38)PTC1(SC); 2008(12)SCALE284; 2008(6)LHSC4364.
rejected the application filed by the writ petitioners on December 28, 2004. On January 1, 2005 the Patent (Amendment Act), 2005 came into operation by which various amendments to the Act were made and the Chapter IV-A which provided … this appeal. A learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs (in short the `Controller') and remanded the matter to him for arriving at a fresh decision … as follows:The writ petitioners filed an application for grant of patent under Section 5(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (in short the `Act') on 28th … writ petitioners for exclusive marketing right according to law that existed on 3rd May, 2002. The Controller was also asked to consider the report of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSpan Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...
Delhi
Apr-01-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)
notification issued in the year 2007 as also the further amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2005, again bringing into effect the provisions of the said Amendment Act on 2 different dates. 3. As I … 47 of the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 was omitted. Further, vide Section 61 of the Amendment Act of 2005, Section 117A of the principal Act as inserted by Section 47 of the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 was also
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...
Chennai
Feb-16-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
(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' … of the Patents Act, for declaring that the threats held out by the defendant on September 1 and 3, 2007 that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant's patent No. 195904 and that the defendant is proposing to
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGlaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...
Kolkata
Feb-02-2006
Intellectual Property Rights
Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 5(2), 11B(3), 24A, 24A(1) and 24A(2); ;Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 21, 78 and 78(5); ;General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6
2006(3)CHN577
regard to it.9. It is argured by Counsel for the respondents that in view of provisions of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, Section 78, nothing remains to be decided in the present case. He says that in view of that Section … making report to him whether the inventions were not inventions within the meaning of the Patents Act, 1970, Section 3. The examiner submitted his report dated July 28, 2000 that substances of claims 9,12 and 13 were not
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »