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' … is called invention, or there may be some ingenuity in the mode of making the adoption'. As Cotton L.J. Put in Blakey and Co. v. Lathem and Co. (1889) 6 RPC 184 (CA) 'to be new 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)

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 … would be the proof of direct imitation by others.34. Further in para 50-51 it has been held that once the subject matter, utility and novelty

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 … alter the position. 179. In response to the contention of learned Senior counsel for Cipla that as per Section 50 of the Patents Act, no right can be assigned, transferred or licensed without the consent of the co-owner,

V.N.N. Panicker Vs. Narayan Pati and ors.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Acts : Registration Act; Letters Patent (Patna) Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 4, 100A, 104, 104(1) and 104(2) - Order 43, Rules 1 and 2; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment), 2000 - Sections 100A

Reported in : 102(2006)CLT479; 2006(II)OLR349

M.M. Das, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in FAO No. … trial Court which was under challenge in the FAO before the learned Single Judge was passed after the amendment/insertion of Section 100A C.P.C. which was given effect to from 1.7.2002 and, therefore, an appeal under the Letters … Dipika English Medium School Society, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act being represented through its Principal Secretary has filed Civil Suit No. 131 … of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sathappan (dead) by L. Rs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. : AIR2004SC5152 and further submitted

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 … sell or distribute the product]., shall not be considered as a infringement of patent rights.‖ TRIPS- Relevant provisions 50. The relevant TRIPS provisions are extracted below: FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/2017 Page 43 of 90 “Article 30 Exceptions

Glochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 25(1), 25(2), 64, 77, 79 and 104; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13

the problem considered was about the confusion arising on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in particular with regard to the remedy of appeal against an order rejecting the pre-grant opposition. Indeed, the … besylate of present invention. The Crystalline cop besylate is non toxic till 50 uM concentration, whereas the toluene solvated form showed toxicity at 5uM and … were well known. Accordingly, the Petitioners filed a representation by way of opposition on 10/7/2008 in terms of Section 25(1) of the Patent Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)raising diverse issues.4. Respondent No. 1 filed

Eisai Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.satish Reddy & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the compulsory licensing regime under Sections 83 and 84 of the Patents Act, as a result of the amendment to the Patents Act in 2005. All the cases cited are prior to 2005. (vii) The plaintiff has … billion dollars to develop Lorcaserin molecule and in conducting clinical trials to commercialize the same.5. Plaintiff no.2 obtained patents in over 65 jurisdictions and the said patent has not been revoked in any country. In 2006, WHO … were the "same or substantially the same" as the suit patent under Section 8. That is Glenmark‟s stated position. Such being the state of things, … D0601, Sunway Opus Grand Neville, 3A, Sy.No.162 P, 164, Ameenpur, Hyderabad - 502032: “I am the Director (Regulatory Affairs) of the defendant company and I

M/S. Iritech Inc vs.the Controller of Patents

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

makes a request in the prescribed manner for such examination within the prescribed period. (2) Omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 In case of an application in respect of a claim for a (3) patent filed under sub-section (2) … On a request for correction of clerical error under section 78(2). *** 3. * - * 4. * 500 * 31. It may be noted that there is no form prescribed for making a request for correction

Yahoo! Inc (Formerly ‘overture Services Inc.’), a Delaware C ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

by a judicial authority against any official administrative decision. The counsel for the appellant also argued that the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 brought in a dichotomy between the pre-grant and post-grant opposition for the first time by introducing the post-grant … USA has been refused in the matter of pre-grant opposition by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 2. The appellant M/s Overture