Advanced Search Results

Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : 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

Reported in : (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 … (K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras) the Supreme Court was considering the power of the court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to give a declaratory relief. Both the judgments were rendered by two Constitution

itc Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Sales Tax

Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AET (Amendment) Ordinance, 2005') or the Assam Entry Tax (Amendment) Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AET (Amendment) Act, 2005') are compensatory in nature? What is the difference between … from the fact that the material referred to is not unambiguous. Para 32 at p. 126 of the Taxation Enquiry Commission (1953-54), the relevant portion … the traders as a class and, at the same time, does not require the traders not to pay patently much more than what is required for providing such facilities to them, the court held that the concept … 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the AET Act, 2001'), notifications, issued under Section 3(4) thereof, imposing entry tax on goods, such as, biscuits, textiles and

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)

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 … non-existing substantive orders the ghost remedy of appeal continued to be available. 32. In my opinion I need not look to anamolies which may be

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' … small bore engines having twin spark plugs for combustion of lean burn air fuel mixtures and Honda Patent 322 is neither in respect of small bore engine nor it teaches twin plugs in efficient combustion of lean

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

that the amendment introduced to Section 126 of the Patents Act, 1970, by Section 67 (a) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Chockalingam, party-in-person For Respondents … appearing for the respondent relying on the decision in Clarence Pais Vs. Union of India, 2001 (4) SCC 32.submitted that as per the amendment to Section 126 (1) (c) (i) of the Act, the other category of

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 … Competition Act for any alleged abuse of dominant position by a patentee. 32. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina referred to Section 60 of the Competition Act which

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

of the fact that the term "importing" was specifically included in Section 107A of the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, without any mention of the word export" or "offering for sale". This clearly indicates that the legislature did … Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Others Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Another

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

to pharmaceuticals. 47. Section 3 is an exclusionary clause'. The present provision was expanded by way of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Despite the fact that ˜inventionis exhaustively defined, the need for an exclusionary provision obviously arose from the Legislative … product was inventedand explicitly involves a substituted judgment as to what the real purpose of the product is. 32. The other major substantive holding by the learned Single Judge on this issue is the adoption of Merc's

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kesar Medicaments and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rule 55; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 13(4), 14, 18, 25, 25(1), 25(4), 30, 64, 107, 117A and 117A(2); Patents Amendment Act, 2005

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT198; 2008(102)DRJ106; LC2008(2)1; 2008(36)PTC568(Del)

the said Act, it may be noticed that prior to the amendment of the said Act vide the Patents Amendment Act, 2005, to the provisions inter alias of Section 117A(2), which came into force from 2.04.2007, appeal could be brought

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Income Tax

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 260A, 143(3), 32

Act. In this connection, he has further submitted that in fact the 2005 amendment which is clarificatory and retrospective in nature itself indicates that the … how.Further, the payment on account of goodwill is similar to assets like patents, copyrights, trademarks; licences referred to in the definition of the block of … written down value of such assets, prescribed under this Act immediately before the commencement of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991:][Provided also that the aggregate deduction, in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible … to acquiring business, customer,database, distribution network, contract and other commercial rights and,therefore, it was within the purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act; and thatonce a plausible view has been taken by the assessing officer, the same didnot