Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Court: delhi Page 3 of about 267 results (0.085 seconds)

Print Pak Machinery Ltd. Vs. Jay Kay Papers Conveters

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1979Delhi217; 1979RLR418

..... the event of any inconsistency between the civil procedure code and the original side rules of this court, the rules will prevail and oot the code and the amending act of 1976 has made no difference in this respect in relation to chapter xv of the original side rules dealing with summary suits. (19) the ..... (18) that they are beyond the purview of the code. that sub-section defines 'rules' to mean those 'contained in the first schedule or made under section 122 or section 125'. significantly, any reference to section 129 is omitted. thus, there is no question of the original side rules being repealed. (15) section 97 of the amending act ..... of this act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal act as amended by this act, stand repealed.'theoriginal side rules were not an 'amendment made' or a provision inserted in the code. they always existed as a separate body of rules. it is patent from section 2 .....

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Intex Technologies (India) ...

Court : Delhi

..... hon'ble mr.justice manmohan singh manmohan singh, j.1. the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of rights in eight patents registered in india alongwith damages/rendition of accounts and delivery up etc.2. alongwith the plaint the plaintiff has filed the interim application being i.a. ..... the plaintiff won an award for its lte broadcast solution in the category best tv on the move service at tv connect in london.4. the suit patents relate to three technologies in the field of telecommunications pertaining inter alia to 2g and 3g devices (mobile handsets, tablets etc), details of which are ..... plaintiff has in its plaint has provided the details of the patents and their claims raised at the time of registrations. the same are as follows : s. no.patent discussion and analysis amr patents1 in203034 linear predictive analysis by synthesis encoding method and encoder this patent relates to celp (code excited linear prediction) based encoding method .....

Hpl (India) Limited & Ors vs.qrg Enterprises and Another

Court : Delhi

..... such order being a judgment within the meaning of cpc, is maintainable. the provisions of cpc (amended and unamended) are applicable to the commercial courts act's proceedings. the term judgment was not even defined under the letters patent act. in the summary suit, though it is an interlocutory order of granting defendants conditional leave to ..... the schedule. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) the commercial division and commercial court shall follow the provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908, as amended by this act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value. (3) where any provision of any rule of the ..... act, 1966.18. it was submitted that a non-obstante clause like section 13(2) must not be construed to create an apparent conflict between the different provisions of a statute and that the court must give effect to all the provisions by adopting the principle of harmonious construction. reliance was placed on iridium india telecom ltd v. motorola inc.:2005 .....

Monsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... patentable" was repealed and the definition of the expression "invention" in section 2(1)(j) was changed, consequent upon ..... of the defendants that the technology of the plaintiffs has been wrongly patented in india on grounds other than those in the counter claim or that the claims granted thereby run foul of the provisions of plant varieties act do not impress. noticeably, by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, the then existing section 5 of the patents act, 1970 concerning "inventions where only methods or processes of manufacture .....

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente vs.uoi & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... is later; (v) the period for making request for examination under section 11b, of the applications filed before the 1st day of january, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11b before the commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later. (emphasis supplied) 8. the controversy has arisen, since the petitioner moved the application ..... to enforce is the right to institute any proceedings for infringement until the patent has been granted . pertinently, sub-section (7) in section 11a was inserted by act 15 of 2005 with effect from 01.01.2005, i.e. by the same amendment act by which sub- section (1) of section 11b was amended. to read the period of limitation prescribed in rule 24b(1)(i) as .....

Metro Tyres Ltd. and ors. Vs. Satpal Singh Bhandari and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... maintainable having regard to the provisions of section 100a of the code of civil procedure as amended by amendment act, 2002?" 7. while dealing with the said issue, the bench adverted to section 10(1) of delhi high court act, 1966 which provides for a letters patent appeal against the judgment of a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction which is known ..... order dated 16.05.2011 passed by the learned single judge in cm nos.9745/2011 and cm no.9746/2011 in fao no.368-377/2005 under clause x of the letters patent whereby the learned single judge has declined restoration of the appeals and set aside the order dated 21.8.2009 by which the appeals were dismissed ..... the intra-court appeal as the same arises out of an order not allowing restoration of a first appeal wherein the assail was to the order dated 12.9.2005 whereby the learned additional district judge had rejected the application for restoration of suit no.1564/1996 on the ground that the suit had already abated as a whole .....

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... is urged that this is significant, given the background of the fact that the term "importing" was specifically included in section 107a of the act by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, without any mention of the word export" or "offering for sale". this clearly indicates that the legislature did not intend to include these activities within the ambit of the said ..... india, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use or sale of any product 76. eventually, the patents amendment act, 2005 which proposed the amendment in its present form, was enacted; it reads as follows: 107a: for the purposes of this act (a) any act of making, constructing, using selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any .....

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Others Vs. Cipla Ltd. and Another

Court : Delhi

..... fact that it a specific definition pertaining to pharmaceuticals. 47. section 3 is an exclusionary clause'. the present provision was expanded by way of the patents (amendment) act, 2005. despite the fact that inventionis exhaustively defined, the need for an exclusionary provision obviously arose from the legislative intent that as a matter of policy, due ..... order passed by the learned single judge was dismissed on april 24, 2009, on the back of a heavily public interest-centric reading of the patents act, 1970 as amended from time to time, and a detailed discussion of the relative affordability of the two drugs to the common man; and the decision is reported ..... sh.arvind nigam, sr.advocate and ms.pratibha m.singh, sr.advocate who appeared for cipla laboured through the case law, the provisions of the patents act, 1970 as amended from time to time, the pleadings of the parties, the various documents exhibited at the trial and the deposition of the witnesses of the two parties .....

Dr. (Miss) Snehlata Gupte Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... .p. (c) no. 3516 of 2007, filed a pre-grant opposition vis- a-vis patent no. 194639 filed by j. mitra & co. according to dr. gupte, in terms of the amendments introduced in section 25(1) of the act by way of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 with effect from 1st january 2005, the time period for filing a pre-grant opposition stood extended till the grant of ..... the patent. according to the petitioner, the patent was not granted till such time it was not sealed and entered .....

M/S. Iritech Inc vs.the Controller of Patents

Court : Delhi

..... period for making request for examination under section 11b, of the applications filed before the 1st day of january, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11b before the commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later. (2)(i) the period within which the controller ..... (3) patent filed under sub-section (2) of section 5 before the 1st day of january, 2005 a request for its examination shall be made in the prescribed manner ..... section 11b. request for examination (1) no application for a patent shall be examined unless the applicant or any other interested person makes a request in the prescribed manner for such examination within the prescribed period. (2) omitted by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 in case of an application in respect of a claim for a .....