Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 5 Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 10,301 results (0.286 seconds)

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479

..... ), which forms part of the agreement establishing the world trade organization (wto). thereafter, the patents amendment act 15 of 2005 was brought into force by way of ordinance, namely, patents (amendment) ordinance 2005 dated 26.12.2004 and ultimately was enacted as the patents amendment act, 2005 which has made substantial changes. to the inventor a patent system confers certain definite advantages. the incentive for technical invention is monetary reward. in the ..... case of machines or apparatus it is impossible to keep the invention secret since knowledge of the invention may be obtained by dismantling the machine. if a patent is obtained for the .....

Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devastan of Paroda by Its Special Attorne ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915

..... law seeks to destroy and not what the new law seeks to save. if one were to look at the newly amended section 100a to the amendment act, 2002 the said provisions clearly bars letters patent appeal with regard to any original or appellate decree or order which is heard in appeal by a single judge of the ..... that the necessary intendment is very clear. therefore he contends that such a vested right of appeal even in the pending and admitted letters patent appeals have been taken away by the amendment act of 2002 whereby the said appeals cannot be entertained and heard after 1st july, 2002, as the necessary intendment is apparent and explicit.25 ..... relying on the above judgments contended that, where the appeals have been admitted and pending in this court by way of letters patent appeals the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of civil procedure code (amendment) act, 2002;37. shri kakodkar therefore contends that there is no express taking away of such substantive right of appeal and also .....

C.P. Bannerjee Vs. B.S. Irani

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1949Bom182; (1949)51BOMLR122

..... , but, after i did so, my attention was drawn to the fact that the bombay legislature had simultaneously with the enactment of bombay act xliv of 1948 also enacted bombay act xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act, 1948. this necessitated a further 'argument and in the result i quashed the judgment which i had dictated on october 6, 1948 ..... been originally instituted in that court. the bombay legislature also simultaneously enacted bombay act xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act, 1948, by section 3 whereof an amendment was made in clause 12 of the letters patent of the high court in the last sentence thereof, which as amended read as under :except that the said high court shall not have such .....

Speaking Roses International Inc. Vs. Controller-general of Patents an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR630; LC2007(2)75

..... detail. 6. the rejection of the claim is essentially based on the fact that it falls within the mischief of section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and that it is not an inventive step taken by the petitioners in as much as 3 other patentees are stated to have been ..... granted patents for the same purpose. it is also rejected on the ground that the petitioners' claim does not sufficiently define the invention, the title of the patented ..... issued the second examination report (ser) which also the petitioners replied to and complied with. by virtue of said procedure the petitioners have applied for amendment to their application for their patent, but which need not be considered for the reasons set out hereinafter. 5. the impugned order dated 19 th april, 2006 shows the details of .....

Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.

Court : Mumbai

..... of ten years transition facility given under the wto agreement that further amendments had to be made and that is how amendment act 15 of 2005 came to be enacted. so far as the patents (amendment) act, 2005 is concerned, while dealing with the proposed amendments to section 25 this is what is stated in clause 23 of ..... postgrant 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 ..... petitioner, invited our attention to the patents act, 1970 and particularly the scheme thereunder in relation to the grant of patent. mr.grover submits that the patents act, 1970 has been extensively amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. it is submitted by him that sections 25 and 26 in the old act have been substituted and the statements of .....

A.J. Von Wulfing Vs. D.H. Jivandas and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243

..... of trade marks in october 1916, by and under the order made by the board of trade and under rules made under the patents, designs and trade marks temporary rules act 1914 amendment act and that thereupon the said marks and names became public property both in england and india. they further contend that sunatogen and formamint ..... london firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' london firm were sold in june 1917 by the controller appointed under the trading with the enemy (amendment) act 1916 to genatosan limited, that from and after june 1917, the said genatosan limited imported the said compounds under the names of sanatogen and formamint, that ..... classes of marks which should be capable of being so appropriated. 7. further amending acts were passed, and the act now in force is the trade marks act, 1909, as amended by the trade marks act of 1919. there were prohibitory sections in the said acts which purported to make registration a condition precedent to a right of action to .....

Novartis Ag and anr. Vs. Mehar Pharma and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)

..... must be considered in that background.18. it is submitted that raising the aforesaid concerns, defendant no. 2 has challenged the constitutional validity of the patents (amendment) act, 1999 in the hon'ble high court of delhi by way of writ proceedings bearing writ petition nos. 9081-82/2003 filed on december 18, ..... same evidentiary material which establishes the identical nature of the impugned drugs of all the defendants, regardless of jurisdiction.4. until the amendments made by the patents (amendment) act, 1999, only a process patent was granted for a medicine or a drug. old section 5 was renumbered as section 5(1) and sub -clause (2 ..... though its product patent application is pending and may be rejected after 1st january 2005 whenever examined. even distribution through channels of charity is hit by the anti-competitive and monopolistic effects of the emr grant. it is submitted that the trips contemplates provisions for 'exclusive marketing rights, whereas the amendment act, 1999 travels .....

Glochem Industries Ltd. Represented by Its Power of Attorney Holder Vs ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13

..... ) 10 scc 368. in that case, however, the problem considered was about the confusion arising on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005, in particular with regard to the remedy of appeal against an order rejecting the pre-grant opposition. indeed, the court considered the legislative change brought about by ..... 2007) 4 madras law journal 1153. in the said case while examining the question regarding the validity of the amendment act which amended section 3(d) of the act, the court proceeded to examine the purport of the amended provision i.e., section 3(d). it is held that from the language of section 3(d) when ..... no. 1 had submitted application in april 2004; whereas section 3(d) was amended and came into effect subsequently on 1/1/2005. moreover, even before the petitioner filed representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the act during the examination proceedings in respect of the application filed by the respondent no. .....

Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984

..... 1948. by s. 3 of that act, clause 12 of the letters patent was amended by adding the following words; 'the high court shall not have ..... act received the assent of the governor general about the same time. it came into force on august 10, 1948 by notification issued by the provincial government and published in the official gazette. simultaneously with the passing of the above act, the bombay legislature also enacted act no. xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act ..... the petitioner before the high court indu bhushan challenged constitutionality and scope and ambit of calcutta city civil court act (no. 23/63) and amendment to the said act by the city civil court (amendment) act, 1969, increasing the pecuniary juris-diction of the city civil court. a content ion that was raised .....

NagIn Mansukhlal Dagli Vs. Haribhai Manibhai Patel

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1980Bom123

..... the legislature of the province of bombay enacted the said bombay high court letters patents (amendment) act, 1948 (bombay act xli of 1948), making the amendment set out earlier to clause 12 of the letters patent. at the same time the legislature took the opportunity by this amendment to abolish the concurrent jurisdiction which this high court possessed in suits of which ..... in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees.'by the bombay high court letters patents amendment act, 1948 (bombay act xli of 1948), the said clause 12 was amended with respect to the aforesaid exception to the high court's power to entertain and try suits. after such ..... with any claim or question provided for by the said section 28. it was because at the date when the bombay rent act was enacted, clause 12 of the letters patent had not been amended, and the only exception to the high court's jurisdiction with respect to suits triable by the court of small cause at .....