Advanced Search Results

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : 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)

Reported in : 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 … any material particular was false to his knowledge;(n) that the applicant contravened any direction for secrecy passed under Section 35 or made or caused to be made an application for the grant of a patent outside India in

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 … Ghosh reported in : [1964]6SCR1001 . The case of Dhirendra Nath Gorai was in the context of interpreting Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. Section 35 of the Act was a provision relating to contents of

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 … 114Dalip Singh v/s State of U.P. and others.(5) Writ Petition (C) Nos.3516, 3517 and 5423/2007. (Delhi High Court) Decided on 15.07.2010. Dr.Mis.Snehlata C. Gupte v/s

M/S. Iritech Inc vs.the Controller of Patents

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

makes a request in the prescribed manner for such examination within the prescribed period. (2) Omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 In case of an application in respect of a claim for a (3) patent filed under sub-section (2) … making a request in the prescribed manner; and in a case where secrecy direction has been issued under section 35, the request for examination may be made within the prescribed period from the date of revocation of 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)

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 … paid heed to it the problem at hand would never had arisen. 35. But noting no conflict in the right and the remedy, in the

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 … the observations made, in Jindal Stainless Ltd. (supra), which proceed, at para 35, as under:In the generic sense, tax, toll, subsidies etc. are manifestations of … 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

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 … Vs. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd., 1972 RPC 457 General Tire and Rubber Co. Vs. Firestone, 670 F.Supp.2d 359 Daiichi Sankyo Vs. Matrix Laboratories and Ors., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) KSR International Co. Vs. Teleflex Inc. among

Novartis Ag and Anr Vs. Cipla Ltd

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

that patent.97. It is necessary to refer certain provisions of The Patent Act, 1970 as amended by The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The relevant Sections 48, 64, 83, 84, 107 and 108 of the same read as under:“48. Rights of … material particular was false to his knowledge; (n) that the applicant contravened any direction for secrecy passed under section 35 1[***]. 2[or made or caused to be made an application for the grant of a patent outside India

Novartis Ag and Anr Vs. Cipla Ltd

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

that patent.97. It is necessary to refer certain provisions of The Patent Act, 1970 as amended by The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The relevant Sections 48, 64, 83, 84, 107 and 108 of the same read as under:“48. Rights of … material particular was false to his knowledge; (n) that the applicant contravened any direction for secrecy passed under section 35 1[***]. 2[or made or caused to be made an application for the grant of a patent outside India

Mahammed Saud and ors. Vs. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz and anr.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46

a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, … Order, 1948, this Letters Patent Appeal can be entertained in view of amendment of the CPC by the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 after 1st July, 2002.13. Before proceeding further, it would be prudent to quote the relevant … the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge. Similar view … from no other orders:(Clause (a) to (f) omitted)(ff) an order under Section 35-A;(ff-a) an order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute