Advanced Search Results

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 … filed on 9th November 2000. According to Section 59(1) of Patents Act no amendment of application for … 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 … 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

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 37, 41, 42, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59 to 63, 66, 69(3), 74, 78, 84(1) to 84(5), 85, 86, 88, 88(3), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117, 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents Amendment Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 18 and 47; Patents Amendment Act, 2005 - Sections 1(1), 1(2), 23, 60 and 61; Patents Amendment Act, 1999

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

notification issued in the year 2007 as also the further amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2005, again bringing into effect the provisions of the said Amendment Act on 2 different dates. 3. As I … 47 of the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 was omitted. Further, vide Section 61 of the Amendment Act of 2005, Section 117A of the principal Act as inserted by Section 47 of the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 was also … (ii) (a), and clause (b), of Section 37, Sections 41, 42, 47, 59 to 63 (both inclusive and Section 74 shall come into force on

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 proposed amendments were beyond the scope of original description and they could not be allowed as per Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. It is urged that original specifications had 11 claims whereas the Petitioner was

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 … did:"is effectively to limit assurance of exemption to the activities necessary to seek approval of a generic drug.‖ 59. In Japan, acts relating to the marketing approval of pharma products were deemed by the Supreme Court covered

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 … anticipation and obviousness is brought out in the decisions Synthon BV v. Smith Kline Beecham (2005) UK HL 59 and KSR International Company v. Teleflex 550 US 1 (2007)67. The decision in KSR International makes a conscious

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

Court : Karnataka

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 … 20.5.2003. The same is applicable to the present suit. BURDEN OF PROOF 59. Section 104-A provides for burden of proof in case of suits concerning

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

Court : Karnataka

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

Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India Vs. the Co ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 25(4), 52(1), 52(2), 57, 57(2), 59 and 73(3); ;Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; ;Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976; ;Central Excise Act - Section 35G; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Section 20; ;Constitution of India - Articles 126, 226, 226(1), 226(2) and 227; ;Patent Rules, 2003 - Rules 4, 5, 6(2) and 6(3)

Reported in : LC2009(2)323

petitioner's essential complaint is the illegal procedure adopted by the controller of patents to insist on hearing an objection of the fifth respondent to the … of the amendment at paragraph 16 of the report:16. It may be stated that by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Clause (1-A) was renumbered as Clause (2). The underlying object of amendment was expressed in the following … and the patent was sealed in the petitioner's favour on April 26, 2005 whereupon the grant dated back to the time of the application. The … as follows:After careful consideration of arguments of both the parties and also keeping in view Section 57 and Section 59, you are informed as follows: 'In the Form 13 filed by the Patentee on 20.11.2006 and the annexure

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

filed representations by way of oppositions under section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with request for hearing under rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 … of Dr Bertrand Sutter and Prof. Christopher Frampton (page 389 and 364 respectively, Vol B). (iv) IPER, (pp 59-65 Vol C), Appeal filed at the USPTO and the decision thereon by the USPTO (p 67-120, Vol.C of

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

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

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