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)

application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and Amendment Act 2005, which came into effect from … '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'

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 … 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

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)

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

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 … matter either de novo or from the stage it was so transferred. 38. Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the tribunals

Chemtura Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 11A(7), 12, 13(4), 25, 47 and 48, 48(1), 48(2), 53, 64, 64(1), 68, 69, 107 and 156; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rules 12(1), 12(3), 15 and 25

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)

above quoted application has been examined under Section 12 of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the first statement of objection of forwarded herewith the compliance. The documents noted in the margin … within a period of 30 days. 19. In response thereto, the Plaintiff by its letter dated 14th October 2005 did not specifically reply to para 8 of the requirements while maintaining that all the remaining requirements had … a mere furnishing of information whether the application is pending or dismissed. 38. Given that the national phase application is itself a part of the

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

India Nippon Electricals Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : MRTP

an appeal against third party intervention opposition under section 25(1) of the Act, 1970, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. This fact was clarified by the counsel for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the respondent … every statute, to dispense with the necessity of having to insert a saving clause on each occasion, Section 38(2) was incorporated in the Interpretation Act of 1889. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is found

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

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 … DEL 507 before IN 774, the learned Single Judge would have found that Erlocip infringed Roche's first patent. 38. At the forefront of the attack of Cipla was the argument that inventions are required to be product

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