Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Court: chennai Page 1 of about 6,927 results (0.927 seconds)

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

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 .....

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

..... , one can only come to a conclusion that while deciding about the prima facie case, even though no presumption of the validity of the patent can be drawn, certainly the patent obtained after the amendment is having more significance. therefore, the patent obtained by the patentee can be given more weight for deciding the prima facie case, however, the onus of proving prima facie case about the validity of the patent and its infringement is still on the plaintiff and the amendment to section 48 by act 32 of 2002 has not made any significant change on the celebrated principle of prima facie case to be proved by the plaintiff before granting an order ..... is not in dispute that in the present case each side is well able to pay any damages which may be awarded against it.therefore, the second aspect of grant of interim injunction-, viz., the balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant for granting an order of injunction.67. the last and final test regarding the grant of interim injunction is about the payment of damages, whether the same can compensate the parties while granting or not granting an interlocutory order of injunction.68. as i have stated earlier, the test is as to whether the plaintiff .....

Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153

..... patent in all fields of technology, including medicines and drugs, with effect from 01.01.2005. pending bringing in comprehensive provisions, the union government of india made some temporary provisions in the act itself, which temporary provisions came to an end on and with effect from the coming into force of act 15/2005. prior to amending act 15/2005, there were amending acts 17/1999 and 38/2002. in the affidavits filed in support of both the writ petitions, parliamentary debates on ordinance 7/2004, in the context of the amendment to section ..... , of the petitioner cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for.in the latter case, the power of the court to grant declaratory relief came up for consideration. the constitutionality of madras act 32/55 was challenged as infringing fundamental rights under article 19(1)(f) and article 31(1). the point that appears to have been argued in favour of granting a declaratory decree, as noted therein, is extracted hereunder:the next ..... 1 lw. 724 (selvi. j. jayalalitha and ors. v. the union of india and ors.), rendered by one of us (justice prabha sridevan), in dealing with such a contention namely, an act must be invalidated because of possible misuse and abuse of the law, it was held as hereunder:67. it was also contended that there could be flagrant misuse and abuse of the law. the possibility of flagrant abuse or misuse of law has never been a ground for holding a provision ultra vires .....

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

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

..... decision requires reconsideration in view of the patents (amendment) act 2005 under which, major amendments were effected to the patents act, 1970. the learned counsel further invited the attention of this court to section 48 of the patents act, which came to be substituted by act 38 of 2002 with effect from 20.05.2003 under which, sufficient protection is granted for product patent as well as process patent. therefore, according to the learned senior counsel by applying the said provision, and the judgment of this court reported in 2006 (32) prc 36 madras (db) wockhardt ..... the form of banana leaf with its colour with artificial scented smell is prima facie innovative and that in view of the patent granted in his favour for the said product, he is entitled for protection pending disposal of the suit. 67. we further hold that under section 108 of the patents act, the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit under patents act.68. as regards the maintainability of application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 c.p.c. even without ..... invoking the said provision, the court in appropriate cases by invoking section of 151 c.p.c. can grant such reliefs. 69. now, .....

Novartis AG, rep. by It's Power of Attorney Ms. Ritushka Negi and Anr. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)

ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all the original applications an ex parte order of injunction was granted by this Court on 20.1.2004. To vacate that ex parte order in each suit, the aggrieved party has filed an application. This application to vacate the injunction stands accompanied by two applications having successive numbers, namely one to stay the operation of the 'Exclusive Marketing Rights', hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'EMR' and the other, to implead the authority, which granted the 'EMR', as a party to the suit. Of course, it must be noticed that in C.S.No. 5/2004 and C.S.No. 6/2004, there is no such application to stay the operation of the 'EMR' and to implead the authority, which issued the said 'EMR', as a party to the suit. The authority, which issued the 'EMR', had filed a counter stating that 'EMR' was justifiably granted. In the context of this Court deciding to hear the originalapplications, where an ex pane order of injunction was granted and the applicatio...

Indian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36

..... patent application of the 4th respondent under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the 'said act). in the said application it was contended by the petitioners that the indian patents (amendment) act, 2005 was passed to make the said act compliant with the obligations under trips. trips, signed in 1995, required india to effect a product patent regime after ten years. from 1995, it became clear that india would adopt a product patent regime by 2005. prior to the patents (amendment) act, 2005 the said act only granted patents ..... the respondent, the resultant decision is a nullity.48. the other decision on this point rendered in the case of state of u.p v. harendra arora reported in : (2002)iiillj1124sc was also in the context of a departmental enquiry on the question of furnishing of a copy of the enquiry officer's report. it was held that though furnishing of such ..... having both pregrant and post-grant opposition in the patent office'. (paragraph-7(d) of the statement of objects and reasons).32. therefore, advisedly right to object at a pre-grant stage has been given to 'any person' by the said amendment. this is an illustration of statutorily broadening the concept of locus standi ..... within the stipulated time limit as provided under section 25(1) read along with rule 55 of the rules. by adopting such a course, there would be no scope for other post-grant opponents to file any further representation.67. as far as the apprehended frustration of the suit .....

immidisetti Dhanaraju and ors. Vs. Motilal Daga, Trading Under the Nam ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264

1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Is the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in case of an equal division of opinion between the Judges to be governed by Clause 36 of the Letters Catent or by Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. The Letters Patent were issued in 1862 and were modified in 1865 but previously a section like Section 98 had been introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of 1859 by the Amending Act of 1861. Between 1865 and 1877, it could not be suggested that the Civil Procedure Code prevailed over the Letters Patent. It was obvious that the Letters Patent prevailed over the Civil Procedure Code. In case of difference of opinion between two Judges, the procedure in the Letters Patent was the only procedure to be followed. This was accordingly held in Nundeeput Mahta v. Mr. Alexander Shaw Urquhart. (1870) 13 W.R. 209 A fresh Civil Procedure Code was passed in 1877 and another in 1882 and in these Codes Section 575 similar to Section 98 of the presen...

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :15. 03.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN W.P.No.8472 of 2006 SP.Chockalingam .. Petitioner Vs.1. Controller of Patents Intellectual Property Rights Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chenna032. 2. Union of India Rep. by Ministry of Commerce & Industry Departmental of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delh011. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the amendment introduced to Section 126 of the Patents Act, 1970, by Section 67 (a) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Chockalingam, party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC O R D E R This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Declaration, to declare the amendment introdu...

M/S. Thiru Muruga Finance Rep. by Its Partner Sri V. Thirunavukkarasu, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2000(2)CTC609

ORDER1. All these writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1997). Hence, they are dealt with in a common judgment.2. For the convenience I shall refer the facts narrated by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4157 of 1998. The petitioner Thiru Muruga Real Estate started its business in the year 1984. Vast extent of properties were purchased and layout formed and sold to public for construction of houses. For the past few years, the Real Estate Market was going down by 30 to 40 per cent and there are no immediate purchasers. The petitioner's firm was formed on 18.4.1994 as a Sister concern for the Thiru Muruga Real Estate to accept deposit from the public. Deposits were accepted both by the petitioner-firm and also by the Real Estate entity Thiru Muruga Real Estate. From 15.4.1995 deposits were received and within a short span of time, a total of 2.75 crores were...

N. Renuka Devi Vs. E. Lalitha and Another

Court : Chennai

..... duly constituted power of attorney agent, p.g. saranyan, under a general power of attorney dated 15th march '82 and registered as document no.67 of .... in the sub-registrar office of the purasawalkam the term first to seventh vendors wherever the context so require, mean and include their respective heirs, ..... any party appearing in person or present in court or his pleader is accompanied. (2)-(3) * * * " it is a useful procedural device and must be regularly pressed into service. .. ... 32. if issues are properly framed, the controversy in the case can be clearly focused and documents can be properly appreciated in that light. the relevant evidence can also be carefully ..... patents of the three high courts, namely, calcutta, bombay and madras are identically worded.) 18. the code of civil procedure, 1877 (act no.x of 1877), which received the assent of the governor general on 30.3.1877, and was thereafter brought into force with effect from 1.10.1877, was "an act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the court of civil judicature". part ix of this act contained special rules relating to the chartered high courts. chapter xlviii of the act applied only to the chartered high courts. section ..... .108 of 1992 and confirmed in o.s.a.no.47 of 1994 and finally in c.s.nos.577 to 579 of 1995, by judgment dated 22.01.2002 in relation to a sale deed executed by the first respondent, the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 to mr.d.k.sekar. the first respondent in her own .....