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)

'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' … the patentee was having, an exclusive right to use the patented product, whereas, after the amendment, as per Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, it gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent the third parties

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 … was required which respondent No. 1 does not have and this according to learned Counsel supports his case. Section 48 of the Act creates certain rights in favour of the patentee which cannot be taken away in the

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 … investigations under Section 12 'shall not be deemed in any way to warrant the validity of any patent.' Section 48 of the Act also is in the form of a negative right preventing third parties, not having the

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

of the fact that the term "importing" was specifically included in Section 107A of the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, without any mention of the word export" or "offering for sale". This clearly indicates that the legislature did … text of Section 107A, the learned single judge noticed the difference between the wordings of that provision and Section 48, noting that the terms “constructing” in Section 107A and “offering for sale” in Section 48 were not important.

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)

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 … relation to product patents was a significant omission. This had to be viewed with the opening expression in Section 48 'subject to provisions of the Act' to mean that unlike in the case of trademarks and copyrights, the

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 … remedy is only the efficacious remedy available in law to protect its statutory right of exclusivity granted vide Section 48 of The Patents Act, 1970. And by virtue of monopoly rights granted under the Act for a particular

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 … remedy is only the efficacious remedy available in law to protect its statutory right of exclusivity granted vide Section 48 of The Patents Act, 1970. And by virtue of monopoly rights granted under the Act for a particular

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 … C.S. No. 448 of 2006. A perusal of the same would reveal that the plaint is filed under Section 48, 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970. it is a specific contention of the learned senior counsel

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 … (RFE) has to be made in terms of Section 11-B (1) of the Act within a period of 48 months from the date of priority of the application or the date of filing the application, whichever is

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 Agreement.