Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Court: delhi Page 7 of about 267 results (0.092 seconds)

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Mercury Electronics and anr ...

Court : Delhi

..... marketing, selling, offering for sale etc., various devices (mobile handsets, tablets etc.) which are compliant with the aforesaid etsi standards thereby infringing the ericsson s patents without obtaining any licence. in para 22 of the plaint, it is stated that ericsson commenced negotiations with micromax and offered licences on reasonable terms as per ..... briefly noticed. in marsden v. albrecht and albrecht, the court of the appeal in england required the trial court to examine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently identified the acts done by the defendants which, he says, constitute an infringement of his process. in the read corporation and f.t. read & sons, inc. v. portec ..... to know whether in fact its mobile handsets infringed the suit patents. mr. sibal submitted that the attempt to bring on record the affidavit of mr. olofsson ought not to be permitted. it would amount to indirectly permitting the plaint to be amended to make good an obvious defect. he submitted that court should .....

Symed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharon Bio-medicine Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... linezolid and related compounds filing date 20.7.2004 19.4.2004 11a publication 29.4.2005 29.4.2005 date of grant 19.12.2007 19.12.2007 patent number in21306 in21306 (pct/in2004/000105) it is averred in the plaint that the various patents/ applications in respect of processes for preparation of linezolid including those of the innovator, ..... agents, employees, franchisees and representatives or any one acting on their behalf were restrained from manufacturing the product linezolid in any manner so as to result in infringement of the plaintiff s registered patent in21306.7. by virtue of this application under order vi rule 17 cpc, defendant no.3 wants to amend para 1, newly add paras 2 and 3 ..... senior counsel for the plaintiff, the law with regard to withdrawal of admissions was examined in great detail and referring to union of india v. pramod gupta, (2005) 12 scc1 in para 23, the supreme court held as under: 23. yet again in union of india v. pramod gupta this court held: 134. .... before an .....

the Delhi Network of Positive People Vs. Union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

..... to the respondent no.1 ministry of industry and commerce to prevent abuse of process in filing of divisional patent applications, including by amending form-i of the patents act, to require a declaration from the patent applicant at the time of filing such divisional application that the parent application discloses multiple inventions not constituting one ..... to, while dealing with the patent applications, act in a manner not provided for or contrary to the rules and which is beyond our jurisdiction.6 ..... that the procedure being followed, though abused by the errant patent applicants, is in accordance with the act and the rules. the petitioner wants us to prevent the abuse. however that, even according to the petitioner, would be possible only by amending the rules or by this court issuing directions to the respondents .....

Mahli Devi Vs. Chander Bhan and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1434; AIR1995Delhi293; 58(1995)DLT162; 1995(33)DRJ121

..... the act does not bar a letters patent appeal. first (his matter came up for consideration in har dial shah v. secretary of state, ..... observed the very basis of the decision in the madras high court judgment disappeared in view of the amendment of section 26 of the act in the year 1921. thereforee, there has been a consistent view upholding the maintainability of letters patent appeal for about 75 years now. such consistency over such a long period of time by itself is ..... that the decision of the single judge is not a judgment and, thereforee, the letters patent appeal is not maintainable, no longer survives. thereforee, the said judgment of the madras'high court is of no assistance. 9. after the amendment of the act in the year 1921 all the courts have taken a consistent view that section 54 of .....

Jindal Exports Ltd. Vs. Fuerst Day Lawson

Court : Delhi

..... the letters patent are subject to the provisions of the arbitration act, 1940 which must be given their full effect and natural meaning.c. the right of appeal ..... the governor-general in council under section 71 of the government of india act, 1915 and also of the governor-general in cases of emergency under section 72 of that act, and may be in all respects amended and altered thereby.6. that the letters patent provide not only a forum for appeal but also a right of appeal ..... under clause 10 of the letters patent was not competent in view of the bar placed by section 39 of the arbitration act, 1940.14. the conclusions arrived at by the supreme court in mohindra supply are as follows:a. clause 37 of the letters patent permits an amendment or alteration of the letters patent in exercise of legislative power.b. .....

Lg Electronics India Pvt Ltd Vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2012(5)CTC(IP)1

..... and would not indulge into the adjudicatory enquiry as to infringement. on the other hand, mr. singh submitted that section 104 of the patent act 1970 (as amended on 2005) clearly provides that once the challenge to the validity of the patent is set up in an infringement proceedings, the matter shall be immediately transferred to the high court for adjudication. therefore, the jurisdiction to ..... the international law and the international covenant. 72. let me now see the municipal law of patents and customs. the patents act of 1970 (as amended in 2005) no where provides for the jurisdiction of customs to adjudicate the patent claims and not the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the patent in the infringement proceedings vests with the civil court. (kindly see section 104 of the .....

Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (Iria) and Others Vs. Unio ...

Court : Delhi

..... services to any of them, after the commencement of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques (regulation and prevention of misuse) amendment act, 2002 unless such centre, laboratory or clinic is duly registered under the act. 51. the act thus takes within its sweep all places/vehicles where ultrasound machine or other machine are kept, whether for prenatal diagnostic ..... b); (iii) support in this regard was drawn from the reply dated 1st june, 2011 of the mci to a query under the right to information act, 2005, to the effect that mci does not recognise certificate course issued by the radiologist for ultrasonography training. 18. the senior counsel for the petitioner in w.p ..... aid of ultrasound machine. the central government, in our view, in exercise of its rule making power under the said act cannot do so. supreme court, in professor yashpal vs. state of chhatisgarh (2005) 5 scc 420 held that it is the responsibility of parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for .....

Eros Resorts & Hotels Ltd vs.explorer Associates Pvt Ltd & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... are specifically enumerated under order xliii of the code of civil procedure, 1908 as amended by this act and section 37 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or letters patent of a high court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree ..... infrastructure adopted a similar position, explaining as follows: 29. in such a situation, it would have to be considered, independent of section 26 of the amending act, as to whether the amended provisions applied to the said second and third category of cases. in this regard, we may note the observations of the supreme court in thyssen (supra) ..... have already referred above. in other words, in respect of these categories, no contrary intention of retrospectivity is evinced upon a reading of section 26 of the amending act. therefore, even if we take the argument of the respondents to be correct, the result would still be the same and, that is, that in respect .....

Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fiit Jee Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... application for adjournments or for amendment of pleadings etc. would fall in this genre; on any consideration, the a&c act neither attempted nor intended to cover these projects. it would be apposite to draw attention once again to cref finance ltd. in which another division bench has categorically concluded that the letters patent are inapplicable to proceedings under ..... ltd. vs- rani construction, (2002) 2 scc 388, which no longer holds the field because of subsequent enunciation of law in sbp & company vs- patel engineering, (2005) 8 scc 618. 12. in g.vijayaraghavan vs- m.d.central warehousing corporation, 86 (2000) dlt 844, the court had been approached under sections 12 and 13 of the ..... ) 5 scc 134 : 2003 scc (l&s) 605 : air 2003 sc 1405, state of jharkhand v. govind singh (2005) 10 scc 437 : 2005 scc (cri) 1570 : jt (2004) 10 sc 349. it is for the legislature to amend the law and not the court vide state of jharkhand v. govind singh(supra). in jinia keotin v. kumar sitaram manjhi ( .....

Snecma vs.union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... communication, the petitioner was told that its request could not be taken on record as the fee payable had been submitted in the form of a cheque whereas the amended rules i.e., patent amendment rules of 2016 (hereafter 2016 rules ) required an applicant to pay the requisite fee only via demand draft/ banker s cheque or cash. furthermore, it was ..... irregularity under rule 1371. therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the 1 137. powers of controller generally. any document for the amendment of which no special provision is made in the act may be amended and any irregularity in procedure which in the opinion of the controller may be obviated without detriment to the interests of any person, may ..... 2.2011, passed in w.p.(c) 801/2011. this judgment is also distinguishable on facts as it deals with the interplay of sections 11b and 57 (5) of the patents act, 1970 and rule 24b of 2003 rules. though, there is a reference to rule 137, it arises in a different w.p. (c) no.3250/2017 page 8 .....