Advanced Search Results

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)

Nippon Steel Corporation Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 11-B (1), (4), 57, 21

considered. It is necessary to examine the scheme of Section 11-B of the Act as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 and the corresponding Rule 24-B of the Rules as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Rules 2006 which read

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 … Cipla was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on March 19, 2008, reported as (2008) 37 PTC 71 (Del) F Hoffman-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd, with a fascinating characterization of the public interest involved

Bombay Environmental Action Group, a Society Registered Under the Soci ... Overruled

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 2, 2(7), 2(9A), 2(12), 22, 22A, 29, 31, 31(5), 33, 37, 37(1), 37(1A), 37(1AA), 37(2), 38, 50, 58(1), 125, 126, 126(1), 127, 128 and 149; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 - Sections 3; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1954 - Sections 7; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1955; Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 - Article 48A; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 31, 47, 48A, 51A, 141, 142, 226 and 368; Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1952;Greater Bombay Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Regulations 1, 52, 52(4), 53(1), 56, 57, 58, 58(1), 58(2), 58(3), 58(4), 58(5), 58(6), 58(7), 58(8), 59(9) and 62(3); Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearan

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

Matched in: Citation 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

M/S. Philips Electronics India Limited Vs. M/S. Asian Electronics Limi ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Judge The Honourable Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman &Amp; D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents)

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

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

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 23 and 53; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 12, 13(4), 43, 45(1), 48, 53, 104 and 108; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 11 and 26(1); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Copyright Act, 1967; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)

for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 283 of 2006 the said decision requires reconsideration in view of the Patents (amendment) Act 2005 under which, major amendments were effected to the Patents Act, 1970. The learned Counsel further invited the attention … The learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent/4th defendant has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 13(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The said provision says that the examination and investigations required under Section … his submissions has placed reliance upon (i) 1886 Vol. III. RPC page 379 - Rothwell v. King(ii) AIR 1929 PC 38 - Pope Appliance Corporation

Yeda Research and Development Company Limited (Appellants) Vs. Rhone-p ...

Court : House of Lords

Subject : Land Acquisition

of the rights of the inventors, is entitled to have the patent transferred into its name. 6. The Patents Act 1977 contains procedural machinery for determining disputes over who is entitled to a patent. Section 8 deals … the opinion of the Comptroller should be excluded from that specification by amendment under section 75 below; and where such new application is made, it … the name of the person claiming to be entitled instead of the person who made the application. 7. Section 37 deals with the case in which the dispute arises when the patent has already been granted and is

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 … reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the