Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 26 in cases of obtaining controller may treat the patent as the patent of opponent Page 1 of about 180 results (0.289 seconds)

Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.

Court : Mumbai

..... subsection (6) provides that if the specification or other documents are amended by the order of the controller, the patent shall stand amended accordingly.this clause also seeks to substitute section 26 of the act, which relates to the matter in cases of "obtaining". ..... under the preamended section 25(2) the provision relating to hearing is couched in the following words:25(2) where any such notice of opposition is duly given, the controller shall notify the applicant and may, if so desired, give to the applicant and the opponent an opportunity to be heard before deciding the case.35. ..... it is pointed out as to how the applications made by the petitioner for grant of patent are in relation to a different subject matter a that of the first respondent's application and reliance is placed on exhibita to the affidavit in reply filed in october, 2010.21 it is on this material that we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.22 mr.grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, invited our attention to the patents act, 1970 and particularly the scheme thereunder in relation to the grant of patent. ..... the hearing is optional even if it is requested and the words 'controller shall hear' used in section 25(1)(k) of the said act are to be construed directory and similarly, the requirement of hearing under rule 55(6) should also be treated directory.19. .....

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

..... it which was known to the applicant for the patent and for which he was entitled to claim protection;f) that the scope of any claim of the complete specification is not sufficiently and clearly defined or that any claim of the complete specification is not fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification;g) that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation;h) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not patentable under this act;i) that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished information which ..... while considering the issue of balance of conveniencethis court has to consider the following factors:i) the extent to which disadvantages to each party would be incapable of being compensated in damages in the event of his succeeding at the trial;ii) the nature of the product and its useiii) the timing of the actioniv) if the balance is approximately equal, the court may consider the relative strength of each party's case only where it is apparent by undisputed evidence that the strength of one party's case is disproportionate to that of the other party.80. .....

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. 1.M.Seeniammal

Court : Chennai

..... respondent in w.a.no.1369 prayer writ appeals filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 18.06.2013 in w.p ..... respondents prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 11.08.2011 in ..... respondent in w.a.no.1358 prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 18.06.2013 in w.p ..... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 26.04.2011 in ..... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 26.04.2011 in ..... respondents prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 26.04.2011 in ..... respondents prayer writ appeal filed under section 15 of letters patents act against the order of this court dated 16.04.2012 in ..... based upon the g.o.ms.no.22 personnel and administrative reforms department dated 28.02.2006 several individuals approached this court and obtained orders in a batch of cases in writ petition ..... being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department ..... the right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly ..... that would be treating unequals as equals .....

Rajeev Indravadan Modi and ors. Vs. Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2001)3GLR2010

..... the anomaly that is apprehended by the revisioner is that, if ultimately the defendants' counter-claims is allowed on aspect of invalidity, it would be riot in consonance with the provisions of section 116 of the patents act, which provides appeal only before the high court against the order of the controller of patents. ..... 8.3 as per section 116 of the act providing for appeals, the appeal lies with the high court against the order granting patent that may be passed by the controller of patents. ..... thakore relied on the decision in the case of food corporation of india v, yadav engineer & contractor, air 1982 sc 1302, where, in an arbitration proceeding, it was held that the term 'taking any other steps in the proceedings' appearing in section 34 of the arbitration act, 1940 does not include each and every step. ..... shelat submitted that an attempt is made on part of the plaintiffs to delay the proceedings and thereby have continuance of the ex-pane order obtained from the court below. mr. .....

India Nippon Electricals Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... the section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 any person interested may oppose the grant of patent and in that event the regular procedure of opposition proceedings will take place and finally both the opponent and the applicant would be heard by the controller of patent ..... the grant of patent, these opposition proceedings are not to be treated as coming under the category of pre-grant opposition by way of third party intervention opposition as provided under section 25(1) of the act, as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005, to be finally regarded as non appealable proceeding for the party who is aggrieved, when the hearing in respect ofopposition proceedings have been conducted and finalised after the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendments) act, ..... the touchstone of the principles of law culled out from the judgments of various courts referred to above, and applied to the facts of this case it leads to a definite conclusion that when the opposition proceedings were finally heard by the respondent no.2, the applicant who are the appellants herein, had the full opportunity and aware that they had the right to go for appeal under section 25 of the act, to the high court (or appellate board whenever the patent bench is formed) in the event of refusal for their application to the grant of patent ..... obtain the benefits of an exemption notification, the same should be liberally construed," noted the judgment, and added: "it is not in dispute that `guntur' was one of the .....

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

..... section 15 of the patents act states that where the controller is satisfied that the application for grant of patent, or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requirement of the patents act or the rules, the controller may refuse the application or may require the application, specification or other documents, as the case may be, to be amended to the satisfaction before he proceeds with the application or refuse the application on failure to do so.4. ..... the fourth major difference between the pre-grant and the post-grant opposition is that while in terms of section 117 a an appeal to the ipab is maintainable against the order of the controller in a post-grant opposition under section 25(4) of the patents act, an appeal has not been expressly been made available against an order made under section 25(1) of the patents act.14. ..... section 25(2), prior to the 2005 amendment, stated that when any such notice of opposition is given, the controller shall notify the applicant (for a patent) and give to the applicant and the opponent an opportunity of being heard before deciding the case. ..... ) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 (patents act.).2. .....

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2006(3)CHN577

..... counsel for the respondents argues that provisions in sub-section (2) of section 24a of the patents act, 1970 empowered the controller to ignore the report of the examiner and decide the application on the basis of result of his own investigation.8.i am afraid such contention, if accepted, is bound to defeat the legislative mandate given by sub-section (1) of section 24a of the patents act, 1970 that cast on the controller an unqualified obligation to obtain a report from the examiner for the purpose of giving final decision in an application for grant of exclusive marketing right. ..... pointing out the facts that on unsustainable grounds the controller rejected the application of the petitioners twice, and that in the face of the examiner's report there was no scope to reject the application regarding the claims ultimately pressed by the petitioners, he argues that this is a fit case where the writ court should issue a mandamus directing the authority to grant the benefit.24. ..... i order that the controller shall give a fresh decision in the application of the petitioners according to law that existed on may 03, 2002 when he gave the first decision rejecting the application. .....

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

..... 514(e)-in exercise of the powers conferred by section 117g of the patents act, 1970 (39 of 1970), the central government hereby appoints the 2nd day of april, 2007 as the date on which all cases of appeals against any order or decision of the controller and all cases pertaining to revocation of patent other than on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any high court, shall transferred to the appellate board. 37. ..... where any such notice of opposition is duly given, the controller shall notify the applicant and may, if so desired, give to the applicant and the opponent an opportunity to be heard before deciding the case. ..... been granted, any person may, in writing, represent by way of opposition to the controller against the grant of patent on the ground- (a) that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through whom he claims, wrongfully obtained the invention or any part thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he claims; (b) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification has been published before the priority date of the claim- (i) in any specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in india on or after the 1st day of january, ..... (4) on receipt of the recommendation of the opposition board and after giving the patentee and the opponent an opportunity of being heard, the controller shall order either to maintain or to amend or to revoke the patent. .....

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. Vs.monsanto Technology Llc and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... 98. thus, the exclusion of transgenic plants and seeds propagated after hybridization from patentability under section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970, is congruent with the amendment of article 53(b) of the epc, wherein, patents cannot be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of ..... and its operation or use and the method by which it is to be performed; (b) disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection; and (c)end with a claim or claims defining the scope of the invention for which protection is claimed; (d) be accompanied by an abstract to provide technical information on the invention: provided that- (i) the controller may amend the abstract for providing better information to third parties; and (ii) if the applicant mentions a biological material in the specification which may not be described in ..... . similarly a case of infringement by use (section 48(a) of the patents act, 1970) of the invention in claims 26-27 is automatically made out since nuziveedu admitted that their cotton varieties and hybrids contain the dna sequences of claims 25-27 of the suit patent and that they are taking full advantage of the functionality of insect tolerance arising solely from the use of the patented dna sequences in their ..... one is conscious that the defendants seem to have reconciled to the position wherein the sub-license agreements are to be treated as all .....

The Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Bharat Thread Mills (India)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR397

..... section 43 lays down that the controller may, on the application of any person claiming to be the proprietor of any new or original design not previously published in india, register the design under part ii of the act. ..... by section 27 of the amending act the original section 64 was amended and in sub-section(1), for the words 'a high court' the words 'the controller' were substituted, and the present sub-section(3) was substituted for the old sub-section (3) of the act. ..... the case clearly falls within the ambit of section 51a(1)(a)(ii) of the patents and designs act, and the petitioner would be entitled to the cancellation of the registration of the respondents' design on the ground that it had been published in india prior to the date of its registration if it is established that the court had jurisdiction to entertain this petition.5. ..... that section provides as under:revocation of a patent in whole or in part may be obtained on petition to or on a counter claim in a suit for infringement before a high court on all or any of the following grounds, namely..there the words used are 'a high court' and not 'the high court'. .....