Advanced Search Results

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : 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

Reported in : 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 … post grant opposition under Section 25(2) and the final grant of patent upon an overall holistic view under Section 43. It is submitted that the grant of a patent after following the procedure involving multi-layered scrutiny must be

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 … therefore the amendments are well within the scope of the patent specification. The Respondent respectfully submits that under Section 43 it found the patent application in order for the grant of a patent. Further, the amendments to the

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : 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

Reported in : 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 … Sections 11A, 12 and 14, then at the stage of pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) and finally, under Section 43 when the patent is granted subject to satisfaction of the two pre-conditions. Given that in the present case … process of its manufacture is patented according to provisions of the Patent Act, 1970 (hereafter 'the Act'). The Central Drug Standard Control Organisation, Directorate General

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' … present to have a valid patent.32. Therefore, it is clear that even after the grant of patent under Section 43 of the Patents Act, 1970, which is given effect from the date of filing of application for the

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 … and post grant oppositions had been raised in respect of the patent granted to the applicant/plaintiff and under Section 43 of the Patents Act 1970, it is open to a party who is opposing the patent to prove

CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited Vs. SERGI Transformer Explosion P ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

CTRâ™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING....................................46 THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE: ESSENTIAL OR NOT?.............. 51 THE RELEVANCE … 39). 7. On 15th December 2008, the 1st Defendant (âSergiâ?) filed an application under the Right to Information Act 2005 enquiring about CTRâ™s Patent application status. On 30th January 2009, the Patent Office replied, saying that Patent No. … Sergi unconditionally withdrew its suit. 7.5 CTR was granted its Patent No. 202302 on 3rd August 2006 under Section 43 of the Patent Act for âA SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING, PROTECTING AND/OR DETECTING EXPLOSION AND/OR FIRE OF … and changes in the iterations of CTRâ™s Patent applications and its frequent amendments. To the extent that I can, I have also tried to understand

Dr. (Miss) Snehlata Gupte Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Dr. Gupte, in terms of the amendments introduced in Section 25(1) of the Act by way of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 1st January 2005, the time period for filing a pre-grant opposition stood extended till the … Patent Application No. 590/Del/2000 (194639) is disposed of in above terms. No order to cost."5. In terms of Section 43 of the Act, where the application for a patent has been found to be in order for grant

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 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 … the Supreme Court, in Jindal Stainless Ltd. (supra), further observed, at para 43,43. Applying the above tests/parameters, whenever a law is impugned as violative of

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. Allergan Inc. and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Education

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

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 … copy of such record or document from any office. It is apparent that such powers are extensive. 61. Section 43 of the Competition Act also provides for imposition of penalty upon any person who fails to comply with