Advanced Search Results

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 enacting clause, saving clause, and proviso, taken and construed together is to FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/2017 Page 62 of 90 prevail.(Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., p. 162)‖ 86. In S. Sundaram Pillai v V.R.

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 … confusion with regard to pending FAO No. 293/06 filed by respondent No. 3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.5. Span … the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been clarified, vide Clause 62, that amended Section 117G is consequential to the enforcement of the jurisdiction

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

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 … appellant herein. In fact he also referred to the Articles 41 and 62 of the TRIPS Agreement stating that the parties to a proceeding shall

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. Allergan Inc. and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Education

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

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)

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 spread of manufacturing activities, the indigenous sector dominated the pharmaceutical industry in India. It accounted for about 62 per cent of the market in 1952 (the table above). However, the rise and growth of multinational corporations

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, … under:Market Shares of MNCs & Indian Companies in the Pharmaceutical Industry in IndiaYear       MNCs (%)            Indian Companies1952       38           621970       68           321978       60           401980       50           501991       40           601998       32           682004       23           77Sources: For 1952, Pharmaceutical Enquiry Committee 1954,

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

The Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 (17 of 1999); The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (38 of 2002); and The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (15 of 2005). These sets of amendments - apart from seeking to simplify and make the Patents Act … which no patent shall be granted under this Act." The proviso was subsequently deleted by Act 15 of 2005. Section 48 of the Act, as is in force today is worded similar to Article 28 of the TRIPS … v. N.K. Modi : (1996) 6 SCC 385 wherein the Supreme Court had interpreted the provision similar to Section 62 of the Competition Act in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that recourse to

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister And Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

the above writ petitions, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution have been amended vide the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Constitution (Eighty- first Amendment) Act, 2000, respectively, which Amendment Acts have been the subject-matter of subsequent … that it is not necessary to include Maratha despite their persistent efforts. 62 He submits that the test to be applied is “what has happened … the State is by itself a source of law. The law is what the Court says it is. Patently the High Court fell into an error in its appreciation of the role of this Court.180. When the … Act, 2018, except to the extent of quantum of reservation provided under Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) over and above 12% and 13% respectively as recommended by