Advanced Search Results

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 … the petition. It is stated that on 29.10.2007 the Petitioner filed a representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 r/w Rule 55(1) of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The Petitioner requested

Indian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(C), 25, 25(1), 25(2), 64, 77 and 159; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rule 2, 55, 55(1) to (6), 55A; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4(1) and 6(2); Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Bengal Money Lenders Act - Sections 35; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 89; Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 - Sections 41(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 66 and 90; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 226

Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36

to as the 'said Act). In the said application it was contended by the petitioners that the Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed to make the said Act compliant with the obligations under TRIPS. TRIPS, signed in 1995, required … representation by way of opposition at a pre-grant stage to the Patent Application of the 4th respondent under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the 'said Act). In the said application … opposition, they gave grounds of opposition and specifically demanded hearing under Rule 55(1) of the Patents Rules, 2003 (herein after referred to as the 'said

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 … plaintiff is liable to be revoked on the ground of prior publication established by US Patent Nos. 5006464, 5541059 and 5160701. It is contended that the said US patents as also US patent Nos.5008080, 4920046, 5763159 and

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 … opposition or otherwise and in this connection he also referred to rule 55 (5) and (6) of the Patent Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as

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 … and thereupon the application, specification and other documents related thereto shall be open for public inspection". Under Rule 55(5) of the Patents Rules 2003 (Rules), the Controller will examine the statement and evidence filed by the applicant

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 … US have fashioned their patent laws to carve out such exception. It is submitted that the Canadian provision, Section 55. 2(1), enabling use of a patented product for generation of data and information to be submitted to regulatory

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 15, 25(1), 25(2), 25(4), 64, 116, 117A and 117G; Constitution of India - Article 226; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999; Patents Rules - Rule 55

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

cases the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment Act.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Mitra & Company v. Assistant … the application on failure to do so.4. Prior to its amendment in 2005 with effect from 1st January 2005, Section 25(1) of the Patents Act provided that at any time within four months from the date of advertisement … at the stage of pre-grant is considered by the Controller himself. Rule 55 of the Patents Rules requires the Controller to consider the statement and

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 … 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 … post-grant opposition stage contemplates more elaborate procedure as is evidenced from Rules 55A to 62.9. There is no difficulty in accepting the argument of the

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

Court : Chennai

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

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge V Rengasamy, A C Patents, Designs