Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The question which I am called upon to answer, for the moment, in the instant appeals is:Whether the appeals are maintainable and if yes, whether the same require to be transmitted to the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the T.M. Act, 1999?2. The question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated in the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 notified on 25th June, 2002 but various provisions thereof brought into force firstly on 20.5.2003 and the remaining by and under a notification issued in the year 2007 as also the further amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2005, again bringing into effect the provisions of the said Amendment Act on 2 different dates. 3. As I would be referring to the date with effect wherefrom the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2002 and 2005 were brought into effect, I would be noting the amended provisions as in force with effect from the notified dates and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. For the sake of convenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No. ... of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15729 of 2008) filed by J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd.3. This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.4. Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Provision is also at times made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act. This is what has exactly happened in this case resulting into utter confusion with regard to pending FAO No. 293/06 filed by respondent No. 3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.5. Span Diagnostics Limited, respondent No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... act.]. the amendment act further incorporated in the parent act, chapter iva, which contained provisions for grant of exclusive marketing rights in respect of pharmaceutical substances for which a claim for patent was made under section 5 of the act. the amendment act of 1999 thus complied with article 70(8) and (9) of the trips agreement.68. three years later the patents (amendment) act, 2002 (act no. 38 of 2002) came to be enacted on june 25, 2002. it brought large scale amendments in the patents act, 1970. the statement of objects and reasons for the amendment act of 2002 is stated as under:amendment act 38 of 2002 - statement of objects and reasons.- the law relating to patents is contained in the patents act ..... based on the committees recommendations, the 1911 act was amended in 1950 (by act xxxii of 1950) in relation to working of inventions, including compulsory licensing and revocation of patents. in 1952, a further amendment was made (by act lxx of 1952) to provide for compulsory license in ..... section of people. in the following lines we shall see how the indian legislature addressed this concern and, while harmonizing the patent law in the country with the provisions of the trips agreement, strove to balance its obligations under the international treaty and its commitment to protect and promote public health considerations, not only of its own people but in many other parts of the world (particularly in the developing countries and the least developed countries).67 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... patent was made under section 5 of the act. the amendment act of 1999 thus complied with article 70(8) and (9) of the trips agreement.68. three years later the patents (amendment) act, 2002 (act no.38 of 2002) came to be enacted on june 25, 2002. it brought large scale amendments in the patents act, 1970. the statement of objects and reasons for the amendment act of 2002 is stated as under: amendment act 38 of 2002 statement of objects and reasons. the law relating to patents is contained in the patents act, 1970 which came into force on the 20th april, 1972. the act was last amended ..... commensurate with giving reasonable compensation to the patentee. based on the committee s recommendations, the 1911 act was amended in 1950 (by act xxxii of 1950) in relation to working of inventions, including compulsory licensing and revocation of patents. in 1952, a further amendment was made (by act lxx of 1952) to provide for compulsory license in respect of food and medicines, insecticide, germicide or fungicide, and ..... section of people. in the following lines we shall see how the indian legislature addressed this concern and, while harmonizing the patent law in the country with the provisions of the trips agreement, strove to balance its obligations under the international treaty and its commitment to protect and promote public health considerations, not only of its own people but in many other parts of the world (particularly in the developing countries and the least developed countries).67 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... purpose.26. in smt.sudha devi, the supreme court relied upon section 3 of the evidence act to hold that an affidavit is not evidence, unless the court passed an order under order xix rule 1 or 2 of the code of civil procedure. but, as i have said earlier, this decision also arose before the amendment of the code by amendment act 22 of 2002. by this amendment act, order xviii rule 4 stood amended, permitting chief examination to be by affidavit. in any case, the affidavit of dr.mayilvahanan ..... element of confusion. sections 29 to 32 do not stipulate as to what constitutes anticipation by publication. rather, these sections merely point out as to what would not constitute anticipation. while section 29 indicates what is not anticipation by previous publication, section 30 indicates that a mere communication of the invention to the government may not constitute anticipation. similarly, section 31 indicates as to when a public display would not constitute anticipation and section 32 indicates when the public working of a patent would not ..... under ex.p.1. it is important to note from ex.p.1 that the same was granted subject to the condition that the validity of the patent is not guaranteed.67. ex.p.2 is the complete patent specification in respect of patent no.196333. the description of the product is found in ex.p.2 as follows : ".the present patent application no.707/che/2003 is a distal femoral prosthesis with thrust bearing polymer pad and rotating axis mechanism. this invention has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench sitting at Delhi) ORDER (No.110/2012) D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents): 1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Philips Electronics India Limited in the Honble High Court of Bombay as Misc Petition 24 of 2006 in the matter of the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in Patent application No. 193488 (Application No. 544/BOM/1999) allowing the application to proceed for grant which was transferred under section 117G to the Board vide Honble High Court of Bombay order dated 30.08.2007 and numbered as TA/11/2007/PT/MUM. 2. On request of the parties, the matter was heard in Delhi. This matter came up before us on 14.02.2012. Shri N. Mahabir, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Ms. H. Rajeswari Advocate Mr. Gaurav Barathi and Mr. Anshul Mitta appeared for the respondent 1. 3. This patent relates to an invention titled Conversion kit to change the fluorescent lighting units from inductive operation to electronic operation. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... - related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips) agreement, india, inter alia, introduced the patents (amendment) act, 2002, in june 25, 2002. this amendment altered the definition of an invention under section 2(1)(j) to include the term new product , thereby, removing the embargo on the grant of patent to products of biotechnological and microbiological processes. during the course of these amendments, section 3 (j) was also added in 2002 to the patents act, 1970. these amended sections are as follows: section 2: definitions and interpretation in this act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (1) (j) 'invention' means a new product or process ..... amino acids, plus four other additional amino acids. monsanto s application- originally made in india was for claims titled methods for fao (os) (comm) 86/2017 & 76/2017 page 32 of 60 transforming plants to express bacillus thuringiensis delta endotoxins . the patent descriptions highlighted, methods of inserting dna construct/nucleic acid sequence into a plant genome its effect in the plant transformed by that method. the claims were: claims 1 to 36,39, ..... plant, plant seed, plant cells or progeny tissues thereof containing said polynucleotide sequence.67. by objections of the indian patent office, on 30.03.2006 of monsanto s 58 claims - claims 1-40, 48-56, 57, 58 were rejected as not allowable under section 3(j). claim nos. 41- 43, 59 were rejected under section 3(b) and other grounds. only claims 45, 46, 47 were not objected .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the bill are . (h) to make a provision enabling persons other than patent holder to obtain marketing approval from the appropriate regulatory authorities within three years before the expiration of the term of the patent 74. eventually, the patents amendment act of 2002 was enacted; it stated as follows: 44. after section 107 of the principal act, the following section shall be inserted namely, 107a: for the purposes of this act (a) any act of making, constructing, using or selling a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required ..... tablet-making fell within the common law exemption to infringement. this was because they did not proceed beyond an experimental (testing) phase and did not take steps to manufacture, promote and sell the product.67. in the opinion of the court, the course of the experimental exception- both before and after the trips has shown the adoption, generally of a broad approach, to permit use of all kinds. broadly, the courts approach ..... ; they differ from each other.32. mr. grover emphasizes that patent regimes do not countenance continuation of monopoly even a single day more than the permitted patent term. thus, generic companies need to only conduct development studies, generation of information and data before the expiry of the patent, i.e. during a patent s term, to launch the product in the market immediately on expiry or invalidation of the patent. it is submitted that the global nature .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. IA No. 6782/2009(Under Section XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) & IA No. 8372/2009 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. IA No. 6782/2009 is an application by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff under No. 213608 (granted on January 9, 2008 by the Controller of Patents) by accepting the offer for sale of a side bearing pad assembly by the Consortium of which Defendants 2 to 4 are members. It also seeks an injunction to restrain Defendants 2 to 4 from making, manufacturing, using or offering for sale the side bearing pad assembly by infringing the Plaintiff's Patent. By an order dated 27th May 2009 this Court restrained Defendants 2, 3 and 4 and erstwhile Defendant No. 3 till the next date of hearing from infringing the patent rights of the Plaintiff and further restrained them from manufacturing, using or offering for sale any device in infringement of ...
Tag this Judgment!