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 Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 37 results (0.383 seconds)

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

..... at that time appeals against decisions made by the controller pertaining to 'pre-grant oppositions' under section 25 were maintainable before the high court under section 116(2) of the indian patents act, 1970.7. ..... 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, 1912 ..... (2) where any such notice of opposition is duly given, the controller shall notify the applicant and shall give to the applicant and the opponent an opportunity to be heard before deciding the case. .....

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... article 65 (sub-articles 1and 2) allowed india to delay the application of the provisions of the agreement for a period of 5 years, that is, till january 1, 2000; sub-article 4 allowed india to delay for a further period of five years, that is, till january 1, 2005, the application of the provision relating to product patent, in respect of all articles excluded by the patent act, 1970 [section 5 of the act as before it was amended:section 5. ..... it may be noted that after the zimmermann patent, the appellant applied for, and in several cases obtained, patent in the us not only for the beta and alpha crystalline forms of imatinib mesylate, but also for imatinib in a number of different forms. ..... and particularly describe the invention 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; andc) 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, section 10(5) provides as under:(5) the claim or claims of a complete .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the patents act, 1970, underwent wide ranging changes, but if we are asked to identify the single most important change brought about in the law of patent in india as a result of the country s obligations under the international agreement, we would unhesitatingly say the deletion of section 5 from the patents act, which opened the doors to product patents in the ..... may be noted that after the zimmermann patent, the appellant applied for, and in several cases obtained, patent in the us not only for the beta ..... the invention 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, section 10(5) provides as under: (5) the ..... the appellant but the us board of patent appeals, in its judgment granting patent for beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate, proceeded on the basis that though the beta crystal form might not have been covered by the zimmermann patent, the zimmermann patent had the teaching for the making of imatinib mesylate from imatinib, and for its use in a pharmacological compositions for treating tumours or in a method of treating .....

Pratap Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC2648; 1997(2)BLJR1076; JT1997(4)SC623; 1997(3)SCALE570; (1997)5SCC87; [1997]3SCR492; 1997(1)LC737(SC)

..... the grievance of the petitioners is that while the act amends, the definition of 'patent and proprietary medicine' under section 3(h) of the act, the definition 'drugs' under section 3(b) read with the definition of 'ayurvedic drug' under section 3(a) has not been changed; as a consequence, there is no prohibition for patenting the ayurvedic drugs manufactured by the petitioners whereas under the impugned order of the drug controller dated february 16, 1983 it is so construed and manufacture of those drugs is prohibited. ..... since experts in ayurvedic system of medicine are to be members of the committee to be constituted by the government of india under section 33-c of the act, it would be open to the petitioners to suggest to the central government names of the experts known to them and it is for the central government to consider whether such person may be drafted as a member of the committee so constituted.12. ..... the government of india or drug controller, as the case may be, would then take a decision on the basis of its recommendations. ..... in the event of such a decision being taken, an opportunity would be given to the persons concerned so that they can also place their material before the committee and thereafter the drug controller/board or government of india, as the case may be, would take a decision on the basis of the expert body's opinion and the material placed by the petitioners in that behalf.11. .....

Natco Pharma Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... a piquant situation has arisen in this case on account of absence of technical member in the intellectual property appellant board (ipab) constituted under the provisions of section 116 of the patents act, 1970. ..... in the above facts and circumstances of this case only and without making our order a precedent for future cases, we called for a panel/list of controllers duly qualified under section 116 of the patents act, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2006.6. ..... it is under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, in view of the fact that the controversy involved before ipab is concerning crystal modification of a n-phenyl-2-pyrimidineamine derivative and since the dispute is regarding patentability of the process as well as the product that we are of the view that such complicated disputes need to be resolved by ipab which must have a technical member in it.5. ..... chakraborti, who is presently deputy controller of patents and designs, will not be entitled to draw his salary for the aforestated period as deputy controller of patents and designs but, he would be entitled to protection of his seniority and other incidental benefits.9. ..... chakraborti, deputy controller of patents & designs, who holds post- graduate degree of m.sc. ..... chandrasekaran on the ground that the said member had earlier filed an affidavit in the matter taking a particular position in the dispute which has a direct bearing on the case in hand.4. .....

M/S S. M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2000LC1(SC); (2000)3GLR2548; JT2000(7)SC151; 2000(4)SCALE713; (2000)5SCC573; [2000]Supp1SCR86; 2001(1)LC181(SC)

..... learned senior counsel, in this context, pointed out the distinction, between the trade marks act and the patents act, by referring us to section 107 of the patents act, 1970. ..... (3) for the purposes of this act, the expression 'distinctive' in relation to the goods in respect of which a trade mark is proposed to be registered means adapted to distinguish goods with which the proprietor of the trade mark is or may be connected in the course of trade from goods in the case of which no such connection subsists either generally or, where the trade mark is proposed to be registered subject to limitations, in relation to use within the extent of the registration.for the present, we are not referring to the other sub-clauses of section 9. ..... mark registered in part a of the register (including applications under section 56), the original registration of the trade mark shall after the expiration of seven years from the date of such registration, be taken to be valid in all respects unless it is proved -(a) that the original registration was obtained by fraud; or(b) that the trade mark was registered in contravention of the provision of section 11 or offends against the provision of that section on the date of commencement of the proceedings; or(c) that the trade mark was not at the commencement of the proceedings, distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor.while section 31 raises a presumption as to validity .....

Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd Vs. National Highways A ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... finally, though she argued the ground of patent illegality, this argument was given up when it was pointed out by the court that this ground, which obtains under section 34(2a) of the 1996 act, would not be available in the case of an international commercial arbitration that is decided ..... (ii), it is hereby declared, for and add the word for and after the words the avoidance of any doubt, add the words it is clarified and after the words public policy of india add the word only and after the word if delete the word - and add the word : and add the sub-clause (a) before the words the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81 and add the word ; or after the words violation of section 75 or section 81 and add sub-clause (b) it is ..... .: the new york convention does not provide for any control on the manner in which the arbitrators decide on the merits, with as the only reservation, the respect of ..... . the control exercised by him is limited to verifying whether an objection of a respondent on the basis of the grounds for refusal of article v(1) is justified and whether the enforcement of the award would violate the public policy of the law ..... there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 33. ..... court, in board of control for cricket in india .....

Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778

..... by section 9 of the act and against such an appellate order a revision can be taken under section 10 of the act under section 11 a reference to the high court on a question of law is provided and if the revising authority refuses to make a reference then the high court can be moved to direct the revising authority to state a case and then an appeal would lie under article 136 of the constitution of india and it may be added that a petition under article 226 would lie to the high court in appropriate cases against ..... which are properly within the legislative competence of the state legislature to tax under the head 'taxes on the sale of goods' but also the turnover in respect of transactions which are plainly 'sales in the course of export or import' and this it does on a patent misconstruction of the statute, could it be said that the fundamental right of the dealer guaranteed by article 19(1)(f) and (g) was not violated by the imposition of the sales tax in such circumstances the logic behind this ..... held by a majority of the court, was not immune from attack on the ground that if infringes the equality clause under article 14, and the tax was also held to be violative of article 19(1)(f), because it was silent as to the machinery and procedure to be followed in making the assessment leaving to the executive to evolve the requisite machinery and procedure thus treating the whole thing as purely administrative in character and ignoring that the assessment on a person or property .....

Ujjam Bai. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778

..... of a tax which is not imposed by the charging section does not involve the violation of a fundamental right merely because the imposition was by reason of an order of an authority created by the statute, though by a patent mis-interpretation of the terms of the act and by wrongly reaching the conclusion that such a transaction was taxable.i consider that the four concessions made by the respondent which i have set out earlier, all proceed on the basis that in these cases there is no valid legislative backing for the action of the authority - executive, administrative or quasi-judicial. ..... :"in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the state includes the government and parliament of india and the government and the legislature of each of the states and all local or other authorities within the territory of india or under the control of the government of india".article, 13(3)(a) defines law as follows :"law includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of india the force of law;"article 19(1) enacts that the citizen shall have the seven right mentioned therein ..... with respect, if i may say so, this argument equates the guaranteed right of a citizen under article 32 of the constitution with that of the prerogative writs obtaining in england, such as writs of certiorari, prohibition and manadamus, issued against orders of inferior tribunals or authorities. .....

Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Bever ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1994SC158; [1993]79CompCas139(SC); JT1993(5)SC684; 1993(4)SCALE7; (1994)1SCC34; [1993]Supp2SCR645; 1994(1)LC140(SC)

..... difficult to accept that even though the high court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situated may be entitled to entertain a writ petition against an order made by the company law board, it would have no jurisdiction to entertain the statutory appeal under section 10f of the companies act in respect of the same company, except in the case of the delhi high court. ..... the parliament, while inserting section 10f in the companies act, 1956, appears to have merely emphasised that the appeal provided therein continues to lie to the high court, as earlier, notwithstanding transfer of the original jurisdiction from the company judge of the high court to the company law board resulting in inapplicability of the letters patent ..... reliance on clause 11 of the letters patent of the lahore high court which by the historical process continues to be applicable to the delhi high court as a further argument to support this submission and to contend that the appeal in the present case lie to the delhi high court since the order was made by the company law board at delhi.4 ..... the construction made by us of section 10f and the other relevant provisions of the companies act is correct, the provision in the letters patent of the lahore high court would not be material for deciding which high court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since the appeal would lie by virtue of the specific provision in section 10f of the companies act .....