Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: patents amendment act 2005 section 45 · Page 1 of about 463 results (0.099 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Mar 19 2008

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-19-2008

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)

establish its case. In this context, 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 courts ' one of caution, ungrounded … 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 … known compound. Counsel explained that in column paragraph 45, US6900221 discloses that the hydrochloride compound disclosed in … 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 … name of the first Plaintiff. It is alleged that on 8.1.2001, under Section 68 of the Act, 1970 the Plaintiffs had entered into a Development

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 30 2008

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-30-2008

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 … what I wish'? British Thompson Houston Co. v. Metropolitan Cickers Electrical Co. 45 R.P.C. at p.23, Otto v. Linford, (1882) 46 L.T.N.S.35; Flour Oxidising Co.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 24 2009

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-24-2009

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 … down. The process claims of the plaintiffs in relation to Polymorph B have been set down for hearing. 45. It is sought to be contended by the plaintiffs that since their application for a patent in respect

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Aug 06 2007

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

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-06-2007

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 … Hon'ble Judge also constituted the coram in the earlier judgment. We extract the relevant portion in paragraph No. 45 of the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court:As regards the other point, it would appear from the language

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 09 2011

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2011

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7 Rule 1; Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)

from 20th April 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th April 2005. However, with the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the framing of the Patent Rules, 2003, the plaintiffs patent bearing No.186857 has been subsequently extended … Section 5 of the 1970 Act was omitted by the Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st January 2005. Section 5 restricted the grant of patents only to methods or process of manufacture. The definition of invention now … Britain, has been neatly summed up in Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 17 p. 453. Since in India, also, the law on the subject is substantially the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 09 2011

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2011

Subject : MRTP

from 20th April 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th April 2005. However, with the enactment of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the framing of the Patent Rules, 2003, the plaintiff’s patent bearing No.186857 has been subsequently extended … Section 5 of the 1970 Act was omitted by the Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st January 2005. Section 5 restricted the grant of patents only to methods or process of manufacture. The definition of invention now … The definition of invention now includes product as well as a process. 45. Section 3 of the Act specifically provides what are not inventions within

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 15 2013

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2013

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 22 2008

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-22-2008

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 … of the anti-HCV' and the time taken to obtain results in the said test is 2 hours and 45 minutes.23. Learned Counsel averred that the kit being manufactured by defendant No. 2 is not approved by the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 27 2015

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-27-2015

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. Mill and Rockley, (1985) RPC 59 Windsurfing International Inc. 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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 15 2010

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-15-2010

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 … of patent is reached only after completion of the processes envisaged by Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 45, the date of patent is already a fixed date since under Section 45 (1) "every patent shall be

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial