Patent Office - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: patent office Page 1 of about 7 results (0.028 seconds)The Alleppy Company Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Narayanan Venug ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
that there was an opposition to the grant of a patent under Section 25 of the act and the same was due process of examination and novelty search by the patent office and notification of the acceptance of the patent application in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAnup Engineering Ltd. Vs. the Controller of Patents Office, New Delhi ...
Court: Gujarat
Reported in: AIR1982Guj250; (1982)2GLR14
On Mar. 7, 1980, respondent No. 1, the Controller of Patents intirriated to the petitioner-Company that the application of the petitioner-Company petitioner to lodge its objections and opposition before the statutory office was very much subsisting within a period of 4 months
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTLg Electronics, Inc a Korean Corporation Vs. the Controller of Patents ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
OF KOREA as a divisional application divided out of the patent application No. 489/KOl/2004 dated 16.08.2004 claiming priority from a Korean dated 27th May, 2008 have been considered carefully but this office is of the opinion that the same is not acceptable.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTYahoo! Inc (Formerly âoverture Services Inc.â), a Delaware C ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
may be held as maintainable as the order rejecting the patent application under section 25 as if it is an order and the Controller of Patents and none else. So the office requirements may be technical or formal, which has to be
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAg. Fumapharm Vs. the Controller of Patents and Designs Patent Office ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
that a new use for a known product cannot be patentable. 2. The application for patent IN/PCT/2002/00543 filed by FUMAPHARM AG of mitochondrial diseases. The explanation was not accepted and the Office informed the appellant that the subject matter was involved in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSchering Corporation, Patent Department K-6-1 1990 Vs. Asst. Controlle ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai rejecting the application filed by the appellant
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDr. Anoop Varghese Vs. the Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr B ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
HON'BLE MS. S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN: Both the counsel present. Counsel for applicant represents that he has no instructions from the...
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>