Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Aug-10-2011
(No.112 of 2011) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 117 A of the Patents Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 10.06.2009 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs for refusing the grant of patent Application No.1474/KOLNP/2003 file by Diamond Innovations, LLC, for invention titled Faceted Mixed Cut Gemstone for Controlled Brilliance. 2. It is submitted by the appellant that they have filed an application for patent bearing No.1474/KOLNP/2003 on 12.11.2003 for their invention title Faceted Mixed Cut Gemstone for Controlled Brilliance claiming priorities of the application filed both in USA 60/292,243 dated 18.5.2001 and 09/949,684 dated 10.09.2001. This application is based on the PCT application No. PCT/US02/01495 dated 18.01.2002. 3. The complete specification filed along with the application for the Patent consisted of 50 claims. The claims 1, 2 and 45 were filed as separate independent claims. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Aug-10-2011
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Kolkata) ORDER No.111/2011 D.P.S. PARMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) This appeal is filed under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 10th August,2009, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the appellants divisional patent application No. 1191/KOL/2005 dated 28.12.2005 under section 15 of the Act. 2. Patent Application No. 1191/Kol/2005 was filed by LG ELECTRONICS, INC, REPUBLIC 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 Application dated 18.08.2003 for their invention relating to Suction Silencer and Compress therewith on 28.12.2005 for grant of a patent. The Respondent-2 examined the application and the First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the Respondent-2 under Section 12 and 13 of the Act on 27.05.2008. FER dated 27.05.2008 inter alia comprises the following techn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Aug-19-2011
(No.128/2011) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the refusal to grant patent for an invention titled Impeller and Fuel Pump (referred to as Invention) bearing application No. 384/CHE/2005 dated 06.04.2005. 2. The amended application contained 11 claims which are reproduced below: 1. An impeller for a fuel pump, the impeller having a pump passage along a rotative direction of the impeller, the pump passage on both sides in an axial direction of the impeller, the impeller rotating to pressurize fuel in the pump passage, the impeller having a plurality of vane grooves along the rotative direction, the plurality of vane grooves being respectively on both sides in the axial direction of the impeller, the plurality of vane grooves communicating with the pump passage, wherein the impeller comprising: a plurality of partition walls, each partition wall partitioning the plurality of vane grooves, which are adjacent to each other in the rotative direction, wherein each p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Sep-13-2011
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Kolkata) ORDER (No. 159/2011) Honble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: This appeal is filed against the rejection of the application for patent by order dated 10th February, 2010. It has National Phase Entry to International PCT Application No.PCT/US2004/014970 with International filing date of May 13, 2004, in respect of an invention relating to Touch Controlled Switch Apparatus Having A Two Wire Interface, and claiming priority date of May 16, 2003 from the corresponding U.S. Patent Application No.60/470, 961. 2. The application for patent and complete specification and drawings were examined by the Patent Office Examiner and the First Examination Report dated 9th July, 2008 raised 09 objections but the objection relevant for us in this case is objection No.4. Subject matter of claims do not constitute an invention in view of the Patent Nos. US 5412255A and DE3511207A. 3. The appellant sent their reply on 23rd February, 2009 where at Para 4, the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Sep-19-2011
(No.175/2011) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman 1. In 2011 (1) SCC 125 Infosys Techonologies Limited vs. Jupiter Infosys Limited and another (ITL vs. JIL in short), the Honble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) dated 09.09.2004 by which the impugned marks were directed to be removed and sent them back to us for reconsideration. 2. Pending the proceedings, a very important event had taken place which was recorded by the Honble Supreme Court: 35 In the affidavit filed by the first respondent on 14.07.2004 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi an unequivocal and categorical statement has been made that now there is no dispute between the plaintiff (the appellant herein) and the defendant (the first respondent herein) under the trade mark and that the defendant has already changed the trade mark, namely, Jupiter International Ltd., in place of Jupiter Infosys Ltd. We do not know why this was not brought to the notice of this Boa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Nov-23-2011
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Ahmedabad) ORDER (No.205/2011) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman: 1. These two appeals have been filed against the order treating the opposition as abandoned and ordering registration of the marks Nos. 1641653 (Dandi Salt) and 1641655 both in class 30. The appellant is aggrieved that he had no notice of the various dates of hearing and the abandonment order was arbitrary. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant had filed the notice of opposition. Thereafter the appellant did not receive the notice to file affidavit in support of opposition. It is only when they saw in the website that registration had been granted they requested the Respondent No. 2 to communicate the details of the proceedings and on 21.07.2010 they received the documents including the impugned order dated 17.05.2010 and this communication itself showed that the letter was unserved. Thereafter they filed a writ petition before the Honble Gujarat High Court which passed an...
Tag this Judgment!