Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-03-2002
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. - 535 U.S. 826 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 01-408. Argued March 19, 2002-Decided June 3, 2002 Petitioner filed a federal-court action, seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe respondent's trade dress and an injunction restraining respondent from accusing it of such infringement. Respondent's answer asserted a compulsory patentinfringement counterclaim. The District Court ruled in petitioner's favor. Respondent appealed to the Federal Circuit, which, notwithstanding petitioner's challenge to its jurisdiction, vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case. Held: The Federal Circuit cannot assert jurisdiction over a case in which the complaint does not allege a patent-law claim, but the answer contains a patent-law counterc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-29-2002
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - 535 U.S. 357 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 01-344. Argued February 26, 2002-Decided April 29, 2002 Drug compounding is a process by which a pharmacist or doctor combines, mixes, or alters ingredients to create a medication tailored to an individual patient's needs. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) exempts "compounded drugs" from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) standard drug approval requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), so long as the providers of the compounded drugs abide by several restrictions, including that the prescription be "unsolicited," 21 U. S. C. 353a(a), and that the providers "not advertise or promote the compounding of any particular drug, class of drug, or type of drug,"...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-09-2002
..... has never been applied outside the 5 context. it does not hold sway for judicial review of legislation enacted, as copyright laws are, pursuant to article i authorization. section 5 authorizes congress to "enforce" commands contained in and incorporated into the fourteenth amendment. the copyright clause, in contrast, empowers congress to define the scope of the substantive right. see sony ..... 000 that united airlines has had to pay for the right to play george gershwin's 1924 classic rhapsody in blue represents a cost of doing business, potentially reflected in the ticket prices of those who fly. see ganzel, copyright or copywrong? 39 training 36, 42 (dec. 2002). further, the likely amounts of extra royalty payments are large enough to suggest that unnecessarily ..... copyright and patent clause, u. s. const., art. i, 8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: "congress shall have power ... [t]o promote the progress of science ... by securing [to authors] for limited times ... the exclusive right to their ... writings." in the 1998 copyright term extension act (ctea), congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years: under the 1976 copyright act (1976 act), copyright ..... even when that span of time covers our entire national existence." walz v. tax comm'n of city of new york, 397 u. s. 664 , 678 (1970). it would be particularly unwise to attach constitutional significance to the 1831 amendment because of the very different legal landscape against which it was enacted. congress based its .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-28-2002
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. - 535 U.S. 722 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 00-1543. Argued January 8, 2002-Decided May 28, 2002 Petitioner Festo Corporation owns two patents for an industrial device. When the patent examiner rejected the initial application for the first patent because of defects in description, 35 U. S. C. 112, the application was amended to add the new limitations that the device would contain a pair of one-way sealing rings and that its outer sleeve would be made of a magnetizable material. The second patent was also amended during a reexamination proceeding to add the sealing rings limitation. Mter Festo began selling its device, respondents (hereinafter SMC) entered the market with a similar device that uses one two-way sealing ring and a nonmagnetizable sleeve. Festo filed suit, clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-16-2002
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - 535 U.S. 234 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-795. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided April 16, 2002 The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. 2256(8)(A), but also "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture," that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(D). Thus, 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometime...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-20-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1598; 2002(6)BomCR367; JT2002(3)SC304; 2002(3)SCALE122; (2002)4SCC638; [2002]2SCR661
Pattanaik, J.1. This appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed against the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 4.11.93 in Writ Appeal No.511 of 1993. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the conclusion that the rights accrued in favour of the respondents to receive interim payments under Section 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, which has already become final, the earlier Judgments of the High Court, not being assailed, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Venkatagiri's case, would not take away that right and, therefore, the respondents would be entitled to receive interim payments in accordance with the judgments in their favour.2. A brief facts are that the two estates called Vuyyur and Meduru, were notified under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and the State Government took over the two estates. The compensation due for the estates w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC858; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)356; 2003(1)AWC798(SC); JT2002(10)SC436; (2003)ILLJ819SC; (2003)2SCC721; [2002]SUPP5SCR438; 2003(1)LC225(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC594
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. A common question, as to whether an employee who opts for the voluntary retirement pursuant to or in furtherance of a scheme floated by the Nationalised Banks and the State Bank of India wold be precluded from withdrawing the said offer, is involved in this batch of appeals which arise out of the judgments of various High Courts. 3. The State Bank of India has been constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 whereas the other banks (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nationalized Banks, for the sake of brevity) were taken over in terms of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act. 1970 (hereinafter referred to as '1970 Act').4. The banks were said to be over-staffed. For the purpose of effective management, man power planning was contemplated by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the Government considered the desirab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-31-2002
Reported in : (2004)1CompLJ50(SC); (2003)184CTR(SC)450; [2003]263ITR707(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC205; 2003(8)SCALE287; (2004)10SCC1
Srikrishna, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court allowing Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 5646/2000 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2802/2000. The High Court by its judgment impugned in these appeals quashed and set aside the circular No.789 dated 13.4.2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as 'CBDT') by which certain instructions were given to the Chief Commissioners/Directors General of Income-tax with regard to the assessment of cases in which the Indo - Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTAC') applied. The High Court accepted the contention before it that the said circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 90 and Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also otherwise bad and illegal. 3. It would be necessary to recount some salient facts in order to appreciate the plethora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-12-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC1815; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)975; 2002(5)BomCR718; (2002)3BOMLR718; [2002(93)FLR838]; JT2002(4)SC115; 2002LabIC1672; (2002)IILLJ544SC; 2002(3)SCALE532; (2002)4SCC609; [20
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order made in the writ petition by the High Court. The writ petition was filed by a registered trade union called Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh (hereinafter referred to as 'Union'. It claims to represent 2000 workmen doing the work of lifting, transporting and dumping of debris, garbage, silt, house gully material etc., at the various dumping grounds of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The appellant herein is the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') and respondent Nos. 2-33 are different contractors who had been entrusted with the above- mentioned work on contract basis. Respondent No. 34 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 35 is theContract Labour Board established under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA Act)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-2002
Reported in : AIR2002SC609; [2002]108CompCas652(SC); (2002)2CompLJ252(SC); JT2002(1)SC61; (2002)ILLJ1088SC; 2002(1)SCALE52; (2002)2SCC167; [2002]1SCR37; 2002(1)SCT836(SC)
The above appeals have been filed by the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant-Company", against the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 12.8.98 in W.A. Nos.1242-1243, insofar as it was held therein that the appellant-company is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, though, their appeals against the order of the Single Judge came to be allowed on the ground that impugned order of transfer against the 2nd respondent was not shown to be vitiated by malafides or by any extraneous considerations and that the respondents have no legal right to challenge the said order of transfer made on administrative grounds, when plea of alleged malafides and vindictiveness has not been substantiated.The second respondent, said to be a Post-Graduate in Chemistry joined the services of the appellant-company on 10.8.91 as Management Trainees and after successive career prospects came to be promoted as senior Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!