Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 93 order for licence to operate as a deed between parties concerned Page 1 of about 1,013 results (0.535 seconds)

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

Court : Chennai

..... 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 ..... 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 ..... insofar as the review applications are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the employees contend (i) that the review applications were not filed in time; (ii) that the review applications are not based either upon any errors apparent on the face of the record or upon the discovery of new and important material; and (iii) that the government, after having implemented the orders in respect of some, cannot discriminate against others ..... a wrong order/decision in favourof any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong .....

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

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2001)3GLR2010

..... 104, 107, 108 and 116 are to be read with section 64, which would indicate that, if in substance, the dispute between the parties is regarding improper grant of patent or revocation of such patent, the jurisdiction lies only with the high court and when the defendants have expressly indicated their intention in the affidavit-in-reply of moving an appropriate application for revocation of the patent, the court oughtnot to have taken a technical view of the matter, stating that no such application has been ..... it may be noted here that the patents act does not provide for any relief in the form of interim injunction and the application before the trial court was under order xxxixof c.p.c. ..... contesting the application for interim injunction or for appointment of a receiver or for interim relief by itself without anything more would not constitute such step as would disentitle the party to an order under section 34 of the act. 21. ..... 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. ..... 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. .....

India Nippon Electricals Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... because there is an opposition procedure prior to 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, 2005 came into force. ..... this is an appeal under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970, as amended by patents (amendment) act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the order dated 27th march, 2009 passed by the respondent no.2. ..... hearing conducted in march 2007 and when the decision was issued by the respondent no.2 in march, 2009, the applicant who is the appellant have become aggrieved by the refusal of patent to his patent application and thus entitled for a right to appeal before the appellate board (as the patent bench because operational wef.2.4.2007) as equivalent to a proceedings of post-grant opposition under section 25(2) of the act, which gives birth to a resultant activities, that is, a right of appeal to the appellate board under ..... so far as statutory construction is concerned, it is one of the cardinal principles of the law that there is no distinction or difference between an express provision and an implied .....

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

..... unable to concur with the views expressed by ipab for the following reasons:(i) the earlier order dated 1st may 2007 passed by this court and the decision dated 13th august 2008 by ipab did not have the benefit of the later decision dated 21st august 2008 of the supreme court in j.mitra & company (supra) which clears the anomalous situation concerning the maintainability of an appeal in this court after the notification of section 117 a of the patents act. ..... 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. ..... where a pre-grant opposition under section 25(1) is filed by a person who is a third party and not a person interested in the sense of the term under section 25(2) or section 64 of the patents act, and such pre-grant opposition is rejected by the controller, it would be for this court when approached by such third party pre-grant opposer under article 226 of the constitution to determine if in the facts and circumstances, the petition requires to be entertained.pre-grant opposition is accepted and the grant of patent is refused22. ..... 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

..... terms of provisions in section 24a of the patents act, 1970, the controller sent the application for patent to an examiner for making report to him whether the inventions were not inventions within the meaning of the patents act, 1970, section 3. ..... fresh decision in compliance with these directions shall be given within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the controller, if he finds that right as claimed by the petitioners is to be given, then he shall make appropriate order conferring such right effective from may 03, 2002 when the application concerned attained finality, though in an order of rejection.29. ..... copy of this order duly countersigned by the assistant registrar (court or assistant court officer) shall be supplied to advocates for the parties on usual ..... the fresh decision, the controller shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties who participated in the proceedings culminating into the decision dated december 28, 2004. ..... xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for. ..... judhabir chetri air 1953 assam 35 (holding that rights of the parties with respect to pending proceedings are regulated by the law that was in force before the repealing statute came into force); national planners ltd ..... counsel for the respondents says that the decisions relied on by counsel for the petitioners dealt with vested rights of the parties involved in those cases, and hence none of them have any manner of application to the .....

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

Court : Delhi

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

..... 15. if the patent act, 1970 as amended from time to time and as in force as of 20.5.2003 had to be considered pertaining to a challenge to a patent the legal position would that under section 25 only one right to oppose a patent at the pre-grant stage was available and appeal against an order passed by the controller of patents was available before the high court under section 116 of the patents act for the reason by not bringing into force section 47 of the amendment act, 2002, chapter xix as existing in the statute book ..... :s.o. 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 ..... i.e. the patents act, 1970 as amended vide amendment act of 1999 continued to be operative notwithstanding the enactment of the patent amendment act, 2002 and the patent amendment act, 2005 since section 47 of the amendment act of 2002 which replaced chapter xix was being brought ..... , vide sub-section 2 of section 116 a right of appeal was available to the aggrieved party against orders passed under section 25 ..... other amendments were also desired in the law with which i am not concerned in the instant appeals .....

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

Court : Delhi

..... monsanto claimed to be the lawful owner and the patentee of the said patent and claims entitlement to rights granted under section 48 of the patents act, 1970.nuziveedu, on the other hand, refutes that the suit claim, for enforcement of patents is liable to be rejected as the subject patent is solely concerning an unpatentable matter (by reason of section 3 (j)). ..... upon them by such law, as indeed the cotton seeds price (control) order, 2015 promulgated by the central government, again in exercise of its statutory powers conferred by essential commodities act, 1955 provide not only the "law" but also reflect the "public policy" of the state and, thus, the "consideration" of the agreement between the parties in order to be lawful, within the meaning of section 23 of the contract act must be in accord with such law and public policy and not ..... the claims were: claims 1 to 36,39,40: a plant comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising a plant functional promoter sequence operably linked to polynucleotide sequence encoding cry2a bt endotoxin protein...wherein expression of said nucleic acid sequence in said plant yields protein localized to a sub-cellular organelle or compartment.. .....

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

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR397

..... the petitioner has filed this petition under the provisions of section 51a of the patents and designs act, 1911, for an order that the registration of the respondents 'sanyasi' design bearing no. ..... in the evidence that was led before me it came out that the respondents' design had been published in india prior to the application for registration of that design under the patents and designs act, 1911, with the result that there is no dispute now between the parties that the design was published in india prior to the application for its registration. ..... to kutch, the high court at bombay;(g) in relation to manipur and tripura, the high court of assam;(h) in relation to the andaman and nicobar islands, the high court at calcutta.it may here be noted that so far as the registration of patents and designs is concerned, there is only one registry at calcutta. ..... an application under section 51a has to be made by any person interested; it has to be made against a person who has got a design registered; the person who has got the design registered may be a foreigner or may be a person who neither resides nor carries on business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of any high court, so far as the subject-matter is concerned, a design can only be registered provided there was no previous publication of that design. .....

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

..... . even as on 20.5.2003 vide section 25 only one right to oppose a patent at the pre-grant stage was available and appeal against an order, passed by the earlier, lay before the high court under the then existing section 116 of the patents act, 1970 for the reason that the amended sections 116 and 117a were not brought into ..... . here also, section 25 of the patents act, 1970 as amended by patents (amendment) act, 2005 (which refers to 'pre-grant opposition' and 'post-grant opposition') was brought into force on and from 1.1.2005 whereas amended section 117a by which appeal was provided for against post-grant opposition order was not brought into force till ..... 293/06 was filed in the high court, chapter xix of the parent act as amended vide patents (amendment) act, 1999 continued to be in operation notwithstanding the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the patents (amendment) act, 2005 as the amended sections 116 and 117a were brought into force only vide notification dated 2.4.07 ..... . the main difference between section 25(1) and section 25(2), as brought about by patents (amendment) act, 2005, is that even after a patent is granted, 'post-grant opposition' can be filed under section 25(2) for a period of one ..... 293/06 to the appellate board which has no authority to decide matters concerning 'pre-grant opposition' ..... under the said amendment act, 1999, as stated above, vide section 116(2) a right of appeal was available to the aggrieved party against orders passed under section 25 .....

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)

..... hand, pre and post grant oppositions had been raised in respect of the patent granted to the applicant/plaintiff and under section 43 of the patents act 1970, it is open to a party who is opposing the patent to prove that there are no inventive steps in the invention of the patent and therefore, the patent granted need not be taken into consideration at least at the time of granting order of interim injunction.61. ..... in respect of the product namely the artificial banana leaf for which patent was given in favour of the plaintiff, as pre and post grant oppositions to the said patent are pending adjudication before the concerned authority at the behest of the 4th respondent/4th defendant and it is for the concerned authority to take a decision on that aspect and if any party aggrieved by such decision, may invoke appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in terms of the patents act. ..... been held that when the third parties infringe the rights granted under the patents act, then, section 108 of the patents act will come into operation, according to which, in case of infringement, the court may grant the relief's including injunction and ordering the goods to be seized, forfeited or destroyed and ultimately interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants, therein from infringing both process and product patent. 46. ..... company is the holder of the process patent, exclusive market rights and drug licence for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparation, namely, nadifloxacin .....