Advanced Search Results
F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.
Delhi
Apr-24-2009
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … suit for infringement the defendant could question the validity of a patent on the grounds set out in Section 64. The patent in the instant case was, therefore, vulnerable to challenge notwithstanding it surviving the challenge at the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNovartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...
Chennai
Aug-06-2007
Intellectual Property Rights
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
(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 … said Treaty, yet, he must go only before the Dispute Settlement Body provided under the 'TRIPS' itself. Article 64 of 'TRIPS' is pressed into service to sustain this point. It is contended by Mr. Anand Grover learned
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJ. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...
Supreme Court of India
Aug-21-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … 62, that amended Section 117G is consequential to the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Board under Section 64 which results to revocation of patent. Vide Clause 47 of Notes on Clauses attached to the Statement of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.
Delhi
Feb-08-2010
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … any person interested.. It may be noticed that the application for revocation of a patent in terms of Section 64 of the Patents Act can also to be filed only by any person interested.. In other words, the
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...
Chennai
Feb-16-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11B(1), 11B(3), 12, 12(1), 13, 13(1), 13(4), 25, 26(1), 43, 47, 48, 53(1), 64, 104A, 105, 106 and 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 48; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act; Patents Act, 1949; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8), 26(1), 51 and 53
(2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
'patent' means a patent for any invention granted under this Act.The said definition itself was substituted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2085) with effect from 01.01.2005. Prior to the said Amendment, Section 2(m) defined 'patent' as,'patent' … an application for revocation of applicant's patent No. 195904 before Indian Patents Appellate Board [in short, 'IPAB'] under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.10(f). In October, 2007, the respondent filed the suit in C.S. No. 979 of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGarware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...
Mumbai
Dec-18-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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)
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 … raised by the contesting parties about the patent.10. Chapter XII of the Act provides for revocation of patents. Section 64 of the Act provides for various grounds on which a counter claim can be filed for revocation of
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGlochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...
Mumbai
Nov-06-2009
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … Section 25(2) of the Act is still available. Even remedy of seeking suo moto revocation of Patent under Section 64 of the Act can be resorted to. Moreover, it is also open to the Petitioners to file a
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJ. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kesar Medicaments and anr.
Delhi
Feb-22-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … and a counter-claim being CC 2196/2006 on 25.11.2006 for the revocation of the plaintiff's patent no 194638 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').14. The submission made by defendant No.
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskF. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited
Delhi
Mar-19-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
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 … 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 … a joint reading of Sections 107 and 64, alleges about its entitlement to use the grounds mentioned in Section 64 in defense against an action of infringement. It has consequently filed a counter claim for the revocation of … 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
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIndian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...
Chennai
Dec-02-2008
Intellectual Property Rights
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
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 … petitioner has got a remedy of post-grant opposition under Section 25(2), apart from the right of revocation under Section 64 and a right of review under Section 77 and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. This
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »