Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. The plaintiffs have moved the present Notice of Motion in the suit seeking reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) thereof, inter alia, seeking a restraint order against the Defendants from manufacturing for sale, sell, marketing and exporting their anti cancer drug composed of the 'B-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate salt'' under the brand name 'VEENAT' or any other brand name till such time the exclusive marketing rights granted in favour of the plaintiffs on November 10, 2003 and gazetted on December 13, 2003 subsists. The plaintiffs also seek an order of appointment of a court receiver in terms of prayer (e).2. The plaintiffs submit that they are the holders of Exclusive Marketing Rights (hereinafter referred to 'EMR') granted under Chapter IV-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Section 24B of the Act deals with grant of EMR.It is submitted that since the plaintiffs have been granted in EMR, akin to a patent right by an expert st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 168(2009)DLT177; 2009(40)PTC613(Del)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 25,34,964.62 as royalty amount under license agreement dated 23rd July 1975 between the parties and interest accrued thereon as well as for rendition of account.2. Plaintiff alleged that under one of its sponsorship schemes of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research developed a process for the manufacture of Terpolymers of Acrylonitrile Butadine (ABS Resigns) using what was known as emulsion technology. This process was got patented vide Patent Nos. 110090 and 118359 and assigned in favour of the plaintiff by a deed of assignment dated 28th May 1974. The assignment was duly registered with the Controller of Patents and Designs. The plaintiff entered into a deed of license with the defendant on 23rd July 1975 in respect of the above patent. By this license deed, the defendant acquired a non exclusive license for a term of eight years w.e.f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Order (No. 240 of 2012) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents): 1. This is a petition filed by Tata Tea Limited for revocation of patent No. 184038 entitled A Method of Making A Tea Composition granted to Hindustan Lever Private Limited. This revocation application was originally filed in the Honble High Court of Bombay under Miscellaneous Petition No.9 of 2004. The Honble High Court of Bombay in its order dated 5.10.206 framed the following issues: (i)Whether the Petitioner proves that Patent No.184038 dated 28th May, 1997 granted to the First Respondent ought to be revoked? (ii) Whether the Petitioner proves that the invention as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was not new as alleged? (iii) Whether the Petitioner proves that the invention so far as claimed in the claims of the complete specification was obvious and did not involve any inventive steps as alleged? (iv)Whether the Petitioner proves that the complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all the original applications an ex parte order of injunction was granted by this Court on 20.1.2004. To vacate that ex parte order in each suit, the aggrieved party has filed an application. This application to vacate the injunction stands accompanied by two applications having successive numbers, namely one to stay the operation of the 'Exclusive Marketing Rights', hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'EMR' and the other, to implead the authority, which granted the 'EMR', as a party to the suit. Of course, it must be noticed that in C.S.No. 5/2004 and C.S.No. 6/2004, there is no such application to stay the operation of the 'EMR' and to implead the authority, which issued the said 'EMR', as a party to the suit. The authority, which issued the 'EMR', had filed a counter stating that 'EMR' was justifiably granted. In the context of this Court deciding to hear the originalapplications, where an ex pane order of injunction was granted and the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
% + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 03.2017 FAO(OS) 21/2015 & CM Nos.731/2015, 1288/2015, 2090/2015 CIPLA LIMITED versus NOVARTIS AG & ANR Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the Appellant ... Appellant ...... RESPONDENTS : Mr P. Chidambaram, Mr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Ms Prathibha M. Singh, Senior Advocates with Ms Bitika Sharma, Ms Namrita Kochhar and Mr Harshit Saxena : Mr Gopal Subramaniam and Mr CS Vaidyanatham, Senior Advocates with Mr Hemant Singh, Ms Mamta Jha, Dr Shilpa Arora, Mr Talha and Ms Anusha For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HONBLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J1 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 09.01.2015 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA248632015 which was an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That application was filed in CS(OS) 3812/2014 which, in turn, had been in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No. 174 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member This application u/s 64 read with section 117D of the Patents Act, 1970 is filed for revocation of patent No.200249 (herein referred to as 249) granted to Aloys Wobben for invention A wind power installation and process for the operation of the same. This application for revocation was filed by Enercon India Limited. 2. From the records in Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), it was observed that this matter was heard by the earlier Board on 1.11.2010 and orders were reserved. Since the Hon'ble Technical Member Shri Chandrasekaran retired on 02.12.2010, decision was not issued. So this case was listed to be heard again. In the meantime, the matter was transferred to the new counsel for the respondents. On completion of all the formalities, the matter was heard on 16.04.201 to 17.04.2013. MP/22/2013 for stay was dismissed as not pressed. 3. Mr. R. Parthasarathy Senior Advocate appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Ana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Telephone Cases - 126 U.S. 1 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1 (1888) The Telephone Cases Nos. 10, 381, 382, 709, 770, 771 Argued January 24-28, 31, February 1-4, 7-8, 1887 Decided March 19, 1888 126 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus It appears from the proof in these causes that Alexander Graham Bell was the first discoverer of the art or process of transferring to, or impressing upon, a continuous current of electricity in a closed circuit, by gradually changing its intensity, the vibrations of air produced by the human voice in articulate speech in a way to cause the speech to be carried to and received by a listener at a distance on the line of the current, and this discovery was patentable under the patent laws of the United States. In order to procure a patent for a process, the inventor must describe his invention with sufficient clearness and precision to enable those ski...
Tag this Judgment!