Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 43 insertion of new section 104a Court: chennai Page 1 of about 34 results (0.171 seconds)

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153

..... one and the same. the prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970, amended by patents (amendment) act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. however, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. the additional prayer ..... 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 3(d) are extensively extracted. a speech .....

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)

..... submits that at this stage of interim application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the patents (amendment) act, 2002 (act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and amendment act 2005, which came into effect from 01.01.2005 have to be taken into consideration, since there are remarkable changes ..... the considered view that the contention that triable issues against the patent must be found out by the court before granting an order of injunction is not sustainable, in the light of the amended provision of section 48 of the. patents act, 1970 (amended act 38 of 2002 with effect from 20.05.2803), by which a patentee is ..... given a exclusive right to prevent third parties from using its patent and product.65. it is relevant, as correctly pointed out .....

Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah,

Court : Chennai

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

..... rights of patentees. since we earlier held that the patent granted to the applicant/plaintiff is only a process patent, in terms of sub-section (b) of section 48, the exclusive right to prevent third ..... 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. section 48 of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amended act 2002) with effect from 20th may, 2003) protects the .....

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)

..... and 24-b of the act primarily arise for consideration at this stage. prior to amending act 17/1999, product patent was impermissible in india. till the amending act was brought into force, process patent alone was permissible. by the amending act, existing section 5 was converted into section 5(1) (dealing with process patent) and by the amendment a new section was brought ..... an identical product was granted in india in favour of the second plaintiff by the drug controller general; on 27.3.2002, the plaintiff filed an application with the patent office kolkota for an 'emr' for the patent product and 'emr' was granted on 10.11.2003; 'emr' confers an exclusive right to sell or distribute ..... under the drug and cosmetic rules referred to above, the manufacturer's agent stood recognised as the only authority to apply for an import licence upto 31.12.2002 and the manufacturer himself coming to be recognised, besides his agent, from 1.1.2003 to apply for an import licence, it is clear that the .....

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

Court : Chennai

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

..... statutory provisions is valid in the eye of law.12. under the amended provisions of the said act, which has been brought about by patents (amendment) act, 2005, it is provided in section 25(1) of the said act where an application for patent has been published, but the patent has not been granted, any person may in writing represent by way ..... grant and post-grant procedure vide sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the said act has been brought about by the patent amendment act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said amendment'). a perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of the said amended act would clarify the legislative intent of giving right of objection to 'any person', whereas ..... 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 .....

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

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264

..... that section 98 applies to appeals under the civil procedure code and clause 36 of the letters patent applies to appeals under the letters patent and this was not intended to be altered by the amending act; the effect of the amending act is only to confirm the previous state of the law. there is a fallacy in ..... . mr. krishnaswami aiyangar, the learned advocate for the respondents, contended that the amending act does not lead to the conclusion that in appeals under the civil procedure code, clause 36 of the letters patent applies. his argument may be thus stated; the amending act is declaratory in its nature; it is not intended to alter the law; ..... 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 .....

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

..... 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- ..... of the constitution of india, seeking an order in the nature of writ of declaration, to declare the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patent act, 1970 by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.2. the petitioner, who appeared party-in ..... struck down, as unconstitutional. however, the relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare 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.52. hence, to meet the ends of .....

The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Madras - 600005 and Othe ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367

..... not chosen to notify the said provision, though several other provisions of the amendment act have been notified and brought into force. 64. the state commission in the above referred case proceeded to observe that the decision of the national ..... the provisions of any other law. further, after the decision in bangalore water supply and sewerage board case : (1978)illj349sc , the parliament has passed the amendment act 46 of - excluding education, scientific, research or training institution from the definition of 'industry', making clear the intention of the legislature. but, the government has ..... would include even 'religious service' and such a construction would lead to absurdity. the more clinching aspect of the matter is that even when the act was amended by act 50 of 1993, the legislature did not choose to include 'education' in the definition of 'service', while introducing 'housing construction' only. further, .....

N. Renuka Devi Vs. E. Lalitha and Another

Court : Chennai

..... (jinia keotin vs. kumar sitaram manjhi): "4. we have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. the hindu marriage act underwent important changes by virtue of the marriage laws (amendment) act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 27.5.1976. under the ordinary law, a child for being treated as legitimate must be ..... those in other courts. for historical reasons this distinction was maintained right from the time the letters patent was issued, and has not been disturbed by the code of civil procedure, 1908, despite the amendments made in cpc from 1976 to 2002. 29. the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the speech of the law member while introducing ..... but not driven; and his will must be the offspring of his own volition, and not the record of some one else's." section 61 of the indian succession act (act 39 of 1925) enacts that, "a will or any part of a will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity .....

M.C.Jayasingh Vs. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited

Court : Chennai

..... at the tests adopted by the supreme court bishwanath prasad, we may see that the said case arose under the 1911 act, which was replaced by the later 1970 act. the 1970 act itself had undergone significant changes, under the patents (amendment) act, 2005, with a view to meet india's obligations under trips. therefore, it is essential to take a wholesome ..... light of the requirement of order xviii rule 4, cpc. but, the said decision was rendered long before the advent of the sweeping amendments made in the code, by the amendment acts of 1999 and 2002. therefore, the said decision is of no relevance. in any case, the contents of ex.p.64 are not intended to be a ..... 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 natarajan is not sought to be .....