Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: patents amendment act 2005 section 58 · Page 1 of about 302 results (0.083 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.

Dec 18 2008

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-18-2008

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 … outside India in contravention of Section 39;(o) that leave to amend the complete specification under Section 57 or Section 58 was obtained by fraud.(p) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the source or geographical

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 22 2019

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-22-2019

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 … of patented inventions that are reasonably related to the development and submission of any information under the FDCA." 58. The Supreme Court further said "this [information]. necessarily includes preclinical studies of patented compounds that are appropriate for

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 … of novelty as formulated by Halsbury, (3rd edn.) Vol.29 p. 27 Para 58) is in the following terms: 'To anticipate a patent, a prior publication

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

May 04 2012

M/S. Philips Electronics India Limited Vs. M/S. Asian Electronics Limi ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

Subject : Land Acquisition

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

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 28 2009

Fcc Vs. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-28-2009

Subject : Land Acquisition

merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.” Id., at 740. And we held that the First Amendment allowed Carlin’s monologue to be banned in light of the “uniquely pervasive presence” of the medium and the … Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, 21 FCC Rcd. 2664 (2006). Multiple parties petitioned the Court of Appeals … by Action for Children’s Television v. FCC , 58 F. 3d 654 (1995) (en banc). Although the … F-Word’s power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning. And the decision to look at the patent offensiveness of even isolated uses of sexual and excretory words fits with Pacifica ’s context-based approach. Because the … 18 U. S. C. §1464, which includes references to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation , 438 U. S. 726 … and inconsistent with [the Commission’s] enforcement responsibilities under Section 1464.” In re Infinity Broadcasting Corp. of Pa.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 03 2011

Glaverbel S.A. Vs. Dave Rose and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-2011

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 (CPC) - Section 151 - Orders 6, 7, 39 Rules 17, 11, 1; Patents Act - Sections 57, 58

of accounts. In the said case, plaintiff also filed an application under Sections 57 and 58 of the Patents Act read with Section 151 CPC being IA No. 13519/2007 seeking amendment in the Claim No. 1. By … not prejudiced in this case even if amended claim No.1, as contained in the order dated 10th September, 2005 is read in this case. He has further contended that the whole purpose of opposing the present application

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 17 2005

Bombay Environmental Action Group, a Society Registered Under the Soci ... Overruled

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2005

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 2, 2(7), 2(9A), 2(12), 22, 22A, 29, 31, 31(5), 33, 37, 37(1), 37(1A), 37(1AA), 37(2), 38, 50, 58(1), 125, 126, 126(1), 127, 128 and 149; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 - Sections 3; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1954 - Sections 7; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1955; Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 - Article 48A; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 31, 47, 48A, 51A, 141, 142, 226 and 368; Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1952;Greater Bombay Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Regulations 1, 52, 52(4), 53(1), 56, 57, 58, 58(1), 58(2), 58(3), 58(4), 58(5), 58(6), 58(7), 58(8), 59(9) and 62(3); Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearan

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

Matched in: Citation 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

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 … this judgment and particularly in terms of what has been held by this Court in paras 55 to 58 thereof. Such practice directions/ instructions will also be placed simultaneously on the website of the Controller of Patents.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 21 2014

Fdc Ltd., Represented by Its Joint Managing Director Vs. Sanjeev Khand ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Mar-21-2014

Subject : Intellectual Property

Matched in: Judge The Honourable Ms. S. Usha, Vice Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member(Patents)

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