Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 120 unauthorised claim of patent rights Page 2 of about 1,092 results (0.241 seconds)

Reynolds Vs. Mcarthur

Court : US Supreme Court

..... said lands" "shall be considered and held as such until otherwise directed by law," and as said boundary line was run by ludlow under the directions of the surveyor general pursuant to an act of congress, entitled "an act to extend and continue in force the provisions of an act entitled" "an act giving a right of preemption to certain persons who have contracted with john cleves symmes or his associates for lands lying between the miami rivers in the territory northwest of the ohio and ..... then asked the court to instruct the jury that as the third section of the act of the congress of the united states of 11 april, 1818, declares "that from the source of the little miami river to the indian boundary line, established by the treaty of greenville in 1795, the line designated as the westerly boundary line of the virginia tract, by an act of congress passed on 23 march, 1804, entitled" "an act to ascertain the boundary of the lands reserved by the state of ..... the plaintiff claimed the land in controversy under a patent issued on 12 october, 1812, founded on an entry made in the year 1810 on a military land warrant granted by the state of virginia for services during the war of the revolution in the virginia line on continental ..... that as the third section of the act of congress of the united states 11 april, 1818, declares "that from the source of the little miami river to the indian boundary line established by the treaty of greenville in 1795, the line designated as the westerly .....

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

..... . sundaram, has raised a point that after the act 38 of 2002, by which section 48 of the patents act, 1970 was amended by way of substitution, the patentees right is better protected than what was in existence in the said provision before the amendment.according to him, after the said amendment and as section 48 of the patents act, 1970 stands today, it should be treated that once a patentee files a suit for infringement based on the patent granted to him, it should be prima facie presumed to be valid until the same is revoked or ..... . even though it can be contended that section 13(4) of the patents act, 1970 stating that the validity of patent is not warranted is in relation to the examination of application for patent and search for anticipation made by the examiner regarding previous publication and prior claim, the effect of section 13(4) has been clearly held by the hon'ble supreme court in bishwanath prasad radhey shyam v ..... the respondent also refers to various provisions of patent act, 1970 to state that there is no infringement of a patent unless each and every one of the claimed elements was present in the article, which is alleged to infringe the patent and further, such element also act in relation to one another in the manner claimed, and according to the respondent, its product is different from that of the applicant and therefore its product does not infringe the patent of the applicant by explaining the technical reasons. .....

Communication Components Antenna Inc. Vs.ace Technologies Corp. And Or ...

Court : Delhi

..... , filed their written statement raising defences of invalidity under section 64 of the patents act, 1970 (hereinafter, patents act ). ..... addition to the grounds urged by the defendants under section 10 and section 64 of the patents act, the defendants have raised the following grounds for invalidating in 893: a) under section 3(a) of the patents act the claims in the patent specification of in 893 are frivolous as they are ..... to wait for the plaintiff to cs comm12222018 page 43 of 46 file a suit for infringement, and in the said suit, withhold crucial and relevant information and vital data; (e) patent rights are limited in nature - especially in the telecommunication industry, technologies are changing rapidly. ..... owing to the fact that the defendant no.1 which is the manufacturer and seller claims to not have any assets in india, and in view of the discussion above, where the defendants are clearly infringing the plaintiff s patent, the defendants are liable to deposit some amounts in the court in order to continue the sales of ..... and having not disclosed crucial information to the court, are liable to be put to terms; (f) the fact that the plaintiff has already licensed its patents, and the present patent not being a standard essential patent, the plaintiff has a right to insist for an injunction once infringement is established. ..... held therein that the exclusive rights of a patentee will not extend to everything he contemplated in the specification and is restricted to the claims. .....

Taje Sufiyah Sulaiman vs.union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... he further contended that the examination was not a competitive examination but merely permitted the candidate to act as a patent agent in terms of section 126 of the patents act, 1970 (hereafter the patent act ). ..... in terms of sub-section(1) of section 126 of the patent act, a person would be qualified to have his name entered in the register of patent agents if he fulfills the conditions set out therein. ..... in exercise of powers conferred under section 159 of the patent act, the central government had notified the patent rules, 2003 (hereafter the patent rules ). ..... in this absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. ..... the judgment of the high court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re- evaluated, no such direction can be issued. ..... on 03.02.2017, the petitioner filed an application under the right to information act, 2005 seeking the copies of her answers sheets of the examination. ..... in the case of pramod kumar srivastava (supra), the supreme court had authoritatively held that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets, an examinee would have no right to seek re-evaluation of his/her marks. ..... the petitioner claims that in absence of any rule prohibiting such re-evaluation, she is entitled to such reassessment. .....

Bayer Corporation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)242

..... a period of twenty years from 12th january 2000 in accordance with section 53 of the patents act 1970 ('patents act'). ..... section 48 of the patents act, which has been expressly made subject to the other provisions of the patents act, confers on the patentee, both where the subject matter of the patent is a product or a process, the exclusive right to prevent third parties, without prior permission of the patent holder, from 'making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes' in india the patented product or a product obtained by the patented ..... claimed that soranib was an imitation of, or a substitute for its patented drug and that by granting such licence, the dcgi would have permitted the marketing of a 'spurious drug' as defined under section ..... were to be accepted, it would mean that instead of the validity of the patent being tested, if at all, either in revocation proceedings or by way of a counter-claim in infringement proceedings instituted by the patent holder, the dcgi will begin with the presumption that the patent granted in respect of the drug for which marketing approval is sought has been ..... letter dated 2nd september, 2008 to the dcgi with complete specifications along with claims in respect of 'sorafenib' and 'sorafenib tosylate' granted in favour of bayer corporation by the patent office. ..... by the licensing authority which is proposed to be marketed with modified or new claims in the matter of indications, dosage form and route of administration. .....

Ebay Inc. Vs. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... [ footnote 2 ] to be sure, the patent act also declares that patents shall have the attributes of personal property, 261, including the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, ..... patent act and the traditional view of injunctive relief accept that the existence of a right to exclude does not dictate the remedy for a violation of that right ..... like the patent act, the copyright act provides that courts may grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of ..... indeed, the patent act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property [s]ubject to the provisions of ..... by the patent act, is well suited to allow courts to adapt to the rapid technological and legal developments in the patent system. ..... to the contrary, the patent act expressly provides that injunctions may issue in accordance with the principles ..... in the patent act indicates that ..... whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards, ante, at 5, and i join the opinion of the court. ..... footnote 2 section 283 provides that [t]he several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such .....

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited Vs. Scarpe Marketing Pvt Ltd

Court : Karnataka

..... award insofar as it grants claim for damages on account of actual business loss between 5th march 2018 to 30th august 2020 awarded to the tune of rs.16,04,41,281/- as nominal damages suffers from patent illegality under section 34(2-a) of the act. ..... appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the supreme court. ..... is liable for a breach of contract, the claimant is in general entitled to nominal damages although no actual damage is proved, the violation of a right at common law will usually entitle the claimant to nominal damages without proof of special damage. ..... nominal damages are awarded when there is an infraction of a legal right, and though it gives no right to any real damages yet gives the right to a verdict because of the infringement - the plaintiff is awarded nominal damages when: (i) the defendant's breach of contract has in fact caused no loss ..... between the parties as to their respective rights or obligation in terms hereof or connected herewith or incidental hereto (including any dispute or difference as to the existence or validity hereof) or as to the interpretation of any of the terms hereof, such dispute or difference shall be referred to the indian council of arbitration for adjudication in 39 accordance with the indian council of arbitration rules and the provisions of the indian arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 or any statutory modifications thereof .....

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs. the Controller General of Patents and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... be noted that the patents act, 1970 as amended from time to time and as was in force as on 20.05.03 had to be considered, for in opposition to the grant of patent and the legal position for that opposition proceedings taking place under section 25, was only one set of right given to opponents for opposition to grant of patent i.e. ..... the original application for patent, as originally filed, consisted of 16 claims of which 1 to 11 were directed to the compounds of formula i designated within the specification or its isomers per se ; claims 12 14 were directed to the use of the compound, method of treatment comprising administering the claimed compound and pharmaceutical compositions comprising the claimed compound; claim 15 was directed to an intermediate used in the preparation of the claimed compound ; whereas claim 16 was an omnibus claims directed to compounds described and exemplified ..... filed a pre-grant opposition under section 25 (1) of the act on 30.01.2006 followed by a revised representation on 30.03.2006 against the voluntarily amended claims which were added later on. 5 ..... dairies precedent, the court cited a paragraph that read: "it is settled law that in order to claim benefit of a notification a party must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. ..... the parties on 30.05.2006, based on the third party intervention opposition under section 25 (1) passed the impugned order on 22.03.2007 allowing the process claims and simultaneously disallowing the product claims. .....

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479

..... (2) what is the scope and effect of section 100 of the patents act, 1970 (as amended) and its impact in the present case ..... at this stage, it would be appropriate to quote section 156 of the patents act, which reads thus:section 156 : patent to bind government - subject to the other provisions contained in this act, a patent shall have to all intents the like effect as against government as it has against any ..... of the patents act, 1970 provides for applications for patents. ..... the patent was obtained wrongfully in contravention of the rights of the petitioner or any person under or through whom he claims;(d) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this act;(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in india before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in india or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in section ..... the patents act, 1970 was passed after consideration of shri ..... accordance with the provisions of patents act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the patents rules, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) these patents were examined by the examiner and acting on his report after thorough scrutiny, 240 patent was sealed on 27.10.2005, while 177 patent was sealed on 23.6.2006 ..... considerable changes were made by 1970 act in contrast to the patents and designs act 1911. .....

Pharmacosmos Holding a/S vs.la Renon Healthcare Private Limited & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... and also, to invoke the right granted under section 64(1) of the patents act, to file a counter- claim (in response to an infringement suit , to seek the revocation of a patent). ..... if any proceedings have been initiated by any person interested , under section 25(2) of the patents act, the same will eclipse the right of the same person to file a revocation petition under section 64(1) of the patents act. ..... thus, only the culmination of procedure contemplated under section 25(2) of the patents act, bestows the final approval to the patent. ..... this is because, section 25 of the patents act, inter alia, provides for the procedure, for the grant of a patent. ..... , appearing at the beginning of section 64(1) of the patents act. ..... if and when, challenges raised to the grant of a patent are cs(comm) 146/2019 page 3 of 6 disposed of favourably, to the advantage of the patent holder, the right to hold the patent can then and then alone, be stated to have crystallized. ..... in its reply to ia no.4103/2019 that it is not infringing the patent no.in291100 of the plaintiff and the drug rapifer of the defendant no.2 has dimer content more than 2.9% while one of the claims of the patent of the plaintiff is of cs(comm) 146/2019 page 5 of 6 dimer content not exceeding 2.9%.22. ..... the counsel for defendant no.2 states that the defendant no.2 has a right to file a counterclaim in this suit challenging the validity of the patent of the plaintiff.26. .....