Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Honble Shri S.Chandrasekaran, Technical Member : This Miscellaneous Petition No. 26/2008 has been filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in the main appeal No. TA/7/07/PT/DEL. 2. M/s Ajanta Pharma Limited, being the appellant filed an appeal under section 116 (2) of the Patents Act, 1970 (in short the principal Act) against the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 22.03.2007, in an opposition to the patent application No. 85/DEL/95 by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970, [as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act)] before the Honble High Court of Delhi bearing No. FAO 136/2007 and CM 5192/2007. The said appeal is a transferred to this Appellate Board under section 117G of the Patents Act, 1970. 3. An application for patent titled Tetracyclic derivatives, processes for preparation and use was filed on 23.01.1995 by Laboratories Glaxo S.A., of France and the application was assigned to M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), a company incorporated under the Laws of Sweden (hereafter also referred to as 'Ericsson'), inter alia, impugning orders dated 12th November, 2013 and 16th January, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the 'impugned order' or 'impugned orders') passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereafter 'CCI') under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as 'the Competition Act'). The impugned order dated 12th November, 2013 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Micromax Informatics Ltd. (hereafter 'Micromax') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act and the same is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 464/2014 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Micromax Petition') and the impugned order dated 16th January, 2014 was passed pursuant to an information filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. (hereafter 'Intex') and is the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 1006 of 2014...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.31068 of 2009 and SLP (C) No.4648 of 2010.2. The common question that arises for consideration by the Court in this batch of cases is whether an order, though not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after 1996 Act ), would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In other words even though the Arbitration Act does not envisage or permit an appeal from the order, the party aggrieved by it can still have his way, by-passing the Act and taking recourse to another jurisdiction.3. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, senior advocate, however, who led the arguments on behalf of the appellants, would like to frame the question differently. He would ask whether there is any provision in the 1996 Act that can be said to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under its Letters Patent either expressly or even impliedly. He would say that the jurisdiction of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Gopakumar Nair Associates, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. CIPLA Ltd., Mumbai on July 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland on August 5, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of LA. No. 3756/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors infringing the plaintiffs registered patent No. 190380.Case of the Plaintiff2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium. In India, the plaintiffs sales and marketing etc. are carried out by Glavindia Pvt. Ltd., 507 Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400076, Maharashtra.3. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling glasses, mirrors of world class quality. The plaintiff claims in the suit to be the innovator of the technology which has lead to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. The plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Jagmohan Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing a first information report dated 15.09.2009, lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari, on the alleged commission of the offence of abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid first information report was registered as Crime Case No. 97 of 2009 at Police Station Basant Vihar in District Dehradun.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 it was alleged by the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh alias Raj, that his marriage was settled with Sweta alias Ritu, sister of the aforesaid Upendra Singh Maniyari. The engagement ceremony between Jagmohan Singh and Sweta alias Ritu was held on 14.01.2009, whereafter, the parties agreed, that the marriage ceremony would be held on 28.09.2009. On 13/14.09.2009 Sweta alias Ritu consumed poison. She died on 14.09.2009. On 15.09.2009 Upendra S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. These appeals arise from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 5 March 2012 on an Originating Summons filed under Rule 238 of the Rules framed by this Court for the Original Side. 2. The Plaintiff, Charu K.Mehta, is a permanent trustee for life time of the First Defendant which is a public trust by the name of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. By an Indenture of Trust dated 5 July 1978, the Settlor, Kirtilal Manilal Mehta, established a Trust inter alia to afford medical relief and for the spread of medical science, including by the establishment, maintenance and support of hospitals. Under the Deed of Trust, the Plaintiff and the Second and Third Defendants were named as permanent trustees for life. The Plaintiff is the wife of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is one of the sons of the Settlor. The Third Defendant is the daughter of the Settlor. 3. The Second Defendant filed an application on 6 July 1978 before the Charity Commissioner for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.188/2009) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member This is an appeal against the order of the respondent dated 27.03.2009 wherein the application for patent No. IN/PCT/2001/01652/CHE filed on 26.11.2001 by Overture Services Inc., USA has been refused in the matter of pre-grant opposition by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). 2. The appellant M/s Overture Services Inc., USA have entered the national phase by filing the application for patent on 28.12.2005 relating to the international PCT application bearing No. IN/PCT/2001/1652/CHE. The instant application was published on 20.04.2007 as per the provisions of section 11A of the Act and the request for examination was filed by the applicant on 14.05.2004. The application was duly examined by the respondent and the third party intervention opponent M/s Rediff.com India Limited of Mumbai entered into a pre-grant opposition under section 25(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and portions of some section-ending pages may therefore be blank. This is deliberate and is to be ignored.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................4 CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................8 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS....................................................... 18 CTR™S PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTR™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING.................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order delivered on:9. h January, 2015 % + I.A. No.24863/2014 IN CS(OS) 3812/2014 NOVARTIS AG & ANR Through ..... Plaintiffs Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta R.Jha, Ms.Shilpa Arora & Mr.Talha Rahman, Advs. versus CIPLA LTD Through ..... Defendant Mr.P.Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. and Mrs.Prathiba M. Singh, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Bitika Sharma, Ms.Anusuya Nigam & Mr.Vihan Dang, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of patent no.222346 granted under The Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of plaintiff No.1, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery-up etc. By this order I propose to decide the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.2. Two plaintiffs have filed the present suit against Cipla Ltd. The plaintiff No.1 (the expression include...
Tag this Judgment!