Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Land Acquisition

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

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Indian Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 51, 54, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69(3), 78, 84, 84(1) to 84(5), 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 116; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 47; Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 23, 25 and 61

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.4. Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date … Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88(3), Section

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 … Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 25, Section 27, Section 28, Section 51, Section 54, Section 57, Section 60, Section 61, Section 63, Sub-section (3) of Section 69, Section 78, Section 84, Section 86, Section 88(3), Section

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 … the experimental use exception followed an unusual trajectory of development. The experimental use exemption was inserted by Section 60(5)(b) of the Patents Act 1977. This is still in force and it applies to all patent subject matter,

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

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. Vs.monsanto Technology Llc and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Trade (GATT), including the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, India, inter alia, introduced the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, in June 25, 2002. This amendment altered the definition of “an invention” under Section 2(1)(j) to include … biotechnology processes. She traced to the legislative history of amendments made to the Patents Act in 2002 and 2005 and also contrasted them with enactment of the PV Act. She submitted that Section 3(j) of the Patents … in C.M. No.17064/2017. FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017 & 76/2017 Page 1 of 60 + FAO (OS) (COMM) 76/2017, CAV. 328/2017, C.M. APPL.13348- 13352/2017 MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property

agreement, the Patents Act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the Parent Act (Patents Act, 1970). Between January 1, 1995 and January 1, … the specification, and both validity (see sections 1 to 4 and 72 of the Act) and infringement (see section 60) are to be tested by reference to the “invention”. It is, of course, a fundamental principle that the

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3(d)(b), 2(1)(d), 133, 24(A), 25(1), 2(8)(10), 14, 5, 10; Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 20(1); Patents and Designs Act, 1911

agreement, the Patents Act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the Parent Act (Patents Act, 1970). Between January 1, 1995 and January 1, … the specification, and both validity (see sections 1 to 4 and 72 of the Act) and infringement (see section 60) are to be tested by reference to the “invention”. It is, of course, a fundamental principle that the

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)

CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited Vs. SERGI Transformer Explosion P ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTRâ™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING....................................46 THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE: ESSENTIAL OR NOT?.............. 51 THE RELEVANCE OF THE GRANT OF THE PATENT................ … 39). 7. On 15th December 2008, the 1st Defendant (âSergiâ?) filed an application under the Right to Information Act 2005 enquiring about CTRâ™s Patent application status. On 30th January 2009, the Patent Office replied, saying that Patent No. … 4th March 2010. (Vol. C, Comp. 1, p. 60, paragraph 7 of Sergiâ™s Reply Affidavit). 7.11 On … and changes in the iterations of CTRâ™s Patent applications and its frequent amendments. To the extent that I can, I have also tried to understand … (For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and