Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-23-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :05. 09.2013 Judgment pronounced on :23. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 1631/2013 PUNEET KAUSHIK AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Praveen Anand, Ms. Divya Vijan, Ms. Ayushi Kiran & Ms. Neeti Wilson, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Adv. & Dr. Kavita Taunk, Assistant Controller of Patents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court claim to have filed on 14.9.2012, in the Patents Office (India) at New Delhi, an international (PCT) application in terms of Rule 18.3 of the PCT Rules, enclosing therewith (i) Form-25 (in duplicate) on behalf of petitioner no.1 Puneet Kaushik (ii) Power of Attorney for Form-25 (copy) (iii) PCT Request along with Declaration of Inventorship (in duplicate) (iv) PCT Power of Attorney (v) complete specification along with drawings (in duplicate) (vi) PCT fee c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-15-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 458/2009 % Reserved on:11. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 RECKITT BENKISER INDIA LTD Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Advocate. Versus WYETH LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr. Vaishali Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.Reference has been made to this Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court, vide the reference order dated 8.10.2010 in this FAO(OS), for this larger Bench to consider as to whether a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain & Anr. 2009 (39) PTC 10.(Del) (DB) has correctly held that publication abroad by existence of the design in the records of the Registrar of designs which is open for public inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-19-2013
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h March, 2013 % + IA No.11625/2012 (of the plaintiffs u/O 3.R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.17014/2012 & IA.No. 18679/2012 (both of the defendants u/O 3.R-4 CPC) in CS(OS) No.1866/2012 and Counter Claim 25/2013 SUGEN INC. & ORS. Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. C.R. Andhyarujina & Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Soumik Ghosal & Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advs. versus A. RAO & ANR. Through: ..... Defendants Mr. C. Mukund with Ms. Firdouse Wani, Ms. Ekta Bhasin & Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The three plaintiffs viz. Sugen Inc., Pfizer Inc & Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. have instituted this suit against the two defendants i.e. defendant No.2 NATCO Pharma Ltd. and its President (Research & Development) & Additional Director Mr. A. Rao, for injunction from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting any product infringing the subject matter of Indian Patent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2013
..... the lowest possible cost to the public.43. justice ayyangar submitted a comprehensive report on patent law revision in september 1959 and the new law of patent, namely, the patents act, 1970, came to be enacted mainly based on the recommendations of the report, and came into force on april 20, 1972, replacing the patents and designs act, 1911.44. section 1 of the new act gave it its ..... 1 in relation to judicial and administrative procedures, including the designation of an address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a member, only where such exceptions are necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement and where such practices are not applied in a manner which would constitute a ..... added and the mixture is boiled for 30 minutes under reflux, filtered and evaporated. step 4 - the residue obtained from step 2 (sic 3) is dissolved in 150 ml methanot and inoculated (introduced) with a few mgms (sic mg) of beta form of imatinib mesylate leading to crystallization of the product. step 5 - the ..... abuses to which a system of patent monopoly is capable of being put. bearing in view the matters set above, he recommended retaining the patent system, but with a number of improvements.39. one of the improvements suggested was to define, with precision, those inventions which should be patentable and equally clearly identify certain inventions, the grant of patents to which would retard .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : May-31-2013
ORDER (No.109 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents) This application u/s 64 read with section 117D of the Patents Act, 1970 is filed for revocation of patent No.200608 (herein referred to as 608) granted to Aloys Wobben for invention A Wind Power Installation. 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 19.10.2010 and orders were reserved. Since the Hon'ble Technical Member Sh ri 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 07.06.2012 and 08.06.2012. 3. Mr. R. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr. Praveen Anand learned counsel represented the respondent. Both the counsel, besides argui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: May 01, 2013 + CM No.6436/2013 in RFA(OS) 92/2012 F. HOFFMANN- LA ROCHEE LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Advocates. versus CIPLA LTD. Represented by: ..... Respondent Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Advocate with Ms.Anusuya Mehrotra, Ms.Ujjwala Jeremiah, Advocates. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr.Advocate instructed by with Ms.Neharika, Ms.Manika Arora, Mr.Mihir Samson, Ms.Suhrita Majumdar, Mr.Dominie Alvaves, Advocates for applicant in CM No.6436/2013. CM No.6433/2013 in RFA(OS) 103/2012 CIPLA LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Advocate with Ms.Anusuya Mehrotra, Ms.Ujjwala Jeremiah, Advocates. versus F HOFFMAN LA ROCHEE LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Ms.Prachi Agarwal and Ms.Nayantara Sanyal, Advocates. CM No.6436/2013 in RFA (OS) 92/2012 M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2013
..... the lowest possible cost to the public.43. justice ayyangar submitted a comprehensive report on patent law revision in september 1959 and the new law of patent, namely, the patents act, 1970, came to be enacted mainly based on the recommendations of the report, and came into force on april 20, 1972, replacing the patents and designs act, 1911.44. section 1 of the new act gave it its ..... 1 in relation to judicial and administrative procedures, including the designation of an address for service or the appointment of an agent within the jurisdiction of a member, only where such exceptions are necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement and where such practices are not applied in a manner which would constitute ..... added and the mixture is boiled for 30 minutes under reflux, filtered and evaporated.step 4 - the residue obtained from step 2 (sic 3) is dissolved in 150 ml methanol and inoculated (introduced) with a few mgms (sic mg) of beta form of imatinib mesylate leading to crystallization of the product.step 5 - the product ..... abuses to which a system of patent monopoly is capable of being put. bearing in view the matters set above, he recommended retaining the patent system, but with a number of improvements.39. one of the improvements suggested was to define, with precision, those inventions which should be patentable and equally clearly identify certain inventions, the grant of patents to which would retard .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-13-2013
LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr agree) 1. A person infringes a patent for a particular product if "he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it " “ see section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act"). The principle issue on this appeal concerns the meaning of the word "makes". The other aspect of this appeal raises a number of issues arising out of section 68 of the 1977 Act. The background facts and the patent in suit Intermediate Bulk Containers 2. An intermediate bulk container, unsurprisingly known as an "IBC", is a large container, normally around 1000 litres in volume, used for the transport of liquids. Such containers face tough transport conditions. They must be capable of bearing heavy weights (as much as six tonnes, as they are often stacked four-high), of withstanding prolonged or violent vibration, and of resisting the forces caused by the liquid splashing around inside, witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-06-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S (OS) No.1361/2002 Date of Decision:06. 12.2013 PAWAN DEEP SINGH BAHL Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. J.Sai Deepak with Mr. Maanav Kumar, Adv. versus PRINCEP SUPPLY AGENCY CF+ ..... Defendant Through: CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking reliefs of permanent injunction, restraining piracy of industrial design, infringement of copyright and passing-off, along with rendition of accounts of profits, delivery-up and damages with respect to Registered Industrial Design No.182353.2. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the trading firm, A. Paul Instruments (Delhi). The plaintiffs case is that he, either by himself or through his licensees and sister-concerns, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of rail thermometers and related equipment. The specific product of the plaintiff, which is the subject-matter of the instant suit is called Plug with Thermostat or Mercury in Glass Thermos...
Tag this Judgment!