Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is a suit filed under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said patent and/or manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125-CC FLAME motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringes the plaintiff's patent No. 195904, claiming of damages for infringement of patent to the extent of Rs. 10,50,000/- etc.Pending the said suit, the plaintiff therein, namely Bajaj Auto Limited has filed O.A. 1357 of 2007 praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner infringing the applicant's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/ invention described in the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of LA. No. 3756/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors infringing the plaintiffs registered patent No. 190380.Case of the Plaintiff2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium. In India, the plaintiffs sales and marketing etc. are carried out by Glavindia Pvt. Ltd., 507 Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400076, Maharashtra.3. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling glasses, mirrors of world class quality. The plaintiff claims in the suit to be the innovator of the technology which has lead to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. The plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1444; (1979)2SCC511; [1979]2SCR757
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals on certificate arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated January 18, 1966, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. The facts material to these appeals may be set out as under:2. M/s. Hindustan Metal Industries, respondent herein, (hereinafter called the plantiff) is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing brass and German silver utensils at Mirzapur. M/s. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, appellant herein, (hereinafter called the defendant) is a concern carrying on the business of manufacturing dishes and utensils in Mirzapur.3. On August 8, 1953, the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction and damages, preceded by a notice, served on the defendant on September 9, 1952, in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, within whose jurisdiction Mirzapur is situated, with these allegations:4. The old method of manufacturing utensils, partciularly shallow dishes, was to turn scrap and polish them on som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)
(Prayer: This O.S. filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Bangalore District, Bangalore, registered as Original Suit No.7801/2003 and transferred to the High Court of Karnataka, praying to the pass a judgment and decree against the defendants as under: a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their licensee, nominees, agents, suppliers, dealers, consignees or any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products LIVOLIV-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent No.186857 of 20th April 1998 granted A method of preparing a Herbal Hepatoprotective and Anthiepatotoxic Composition in the market throughout India and etc.)1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product Livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected Patent rights u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The orders passed herein will govern the disposal of O.S.A. Nos. 263 and 283 of 2006.For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred in C.S. No. 448 of 2006, is adopted here also.The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Original Side Appeals are as follows:One A.R. Safiullah, sole Proprietor and trading as S.A. Safiullah & Company having office at Chennai as well as Pudukottai, has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 488 of 2006 on the file of this Court against Daniel, Proprietor of M/s. Jayam Traders-the first Defendant, M/s. Jayam Industries represented by its partner Tmt. Indira Daniel-second Defendant, M.A. Rajapudeen, Proprietor M/s. Shalimar Traders-third defendant and Mariyappan, trading as Sivagami Agencies, Sivakasi-the fourth Defendant praying for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered patent under No. 198079 in respect of 'food-grade l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2008HP23,LC2008(2)370,2008(36)PTC938,2007(3)ShimLC324
Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 530 of 2005 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005 rejecting the prayer of the appellants-plaintiffs for grant of interim relief.2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Patent No. 195917 granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 11-7-2005. The patent has been granted in respect of a device used for manufacture of manually hauling the agricultural produce. According to the plaintiffs, the invention was visualized by them in 1999. They developed it over a period of time and applied for grant of patent on 24-5-2000. The patent was granted in their favour on 11-7-2005 but it will relate back to the date of application i.e. 24-5-2002. The invention of the plaintiffs as set out by them in the plaint is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This order disposes of is 642/2008, an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff holds a patent. Emergent notice was issued, and the parties filed their pleadings as well as documents in support of their contentions, in the suit and the interlocutory proceedings. The application was heard finally for disposal.I The suit1. The Plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of their patent rights in the drug Erlotinib, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing goods.2. The first Plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and has its principal office at Grenzacherstrasse, 124 CH 4070, Basel Switzerland. The second Plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States with its registered office at 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
ORDER1. The opponents have preferred this appeal against the order and decision dated 5th July, 1980 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the opposition to the grant of patent and directing the Complete Specification to be amended as indicated in the said order.2. On 28-3-1971 one Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla made an application numbered 130620 for registration of a Patent for an invention relating to 'Improvement in or relating to Mufflers or Exhaust Silencers for Internal Combustion Engines' along with provisional specifications. On 14-6-71 the applicant filed complete specifications. The application was accepted by the Controller of Patents and the acceptance was notified in the Gazette of India dated 19-8-1972. The petitioners filed notice of opposition under S. 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 10-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply to the Notice of Opposition and on 26-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply -- Statement. On or about 21st June 1973 the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Plaintiffs F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (`Roche') and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc. (`OSI') is directed against the judgment dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing I.A. No. 642/2008 filed by them in their suit CS (OS) No. 89/2008, thereby declining their prayer for grant of an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent Cipla Limited from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff No. 2 claimed to hold a patent jointly with Pfizer Products Inc. The impugned judgment nevertheless put the defendant to terms including furnishing an undertaking to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the event of the suit being decreed, to maintain accounts of the sale of its product Erlocip, file in the court quarterly accounts along with the affidavit of one of its directors, and to file in the court annual statement of the sales of Erlocip duly authenticated by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)42
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 10848/2006 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)IA No. 11160/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC BY THE DEFENDANT)IA No. 13971/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)1. The claim of the plaintiff of patent violation by the defendant in respect of moralized packaging film patent of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the patent bearing No. 197823 in respect of the said moralized packaging films in pursuance to a patent granted on 12.04.2006 as per an application of the plaintiff dated 03.03.2004. The patent comprises of 21 claims of which there is a parent claim and there are twenty dependent claims depending directly or indirectly on the parent claim. The description of the invention as per the parent claim is as under:a multilayer, thermo formable, translucent food and pharmaceutical packaging film consisting of a core layer of 100-1000 microns thickness of food ...
Tag this Judgment!