Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW376; AIR2009SC1147; 2008(4)AWC3839(SC); 2008BusLR879(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN197; LC2008(3)131; (2009)2MLJ548(SC); 2008(38)PTC1(SC); 2008(12)SCALE284; 2008(6)LHSC4364.
..... of the learned single jude, dated 16th december, 2004, the controller of patent again rejected the application filed by the writ petitioners on december 28, 2004. on january 1, 2005 the patent (amendment act), 2005 came into operation by which various amendments to the act were made and the chapter iv-a which provided the mode of adjudication of the claim of emr was totally deleted. on june 9, 2005 the writ petitioners filed another writ application thereby challenging the order ..... dated 28th december, 2004 passed by the controller of patent by which the prayer for the emr of the writ petitioners was rejected for the second .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)
..... . that was valid for a period of two years and the second plaintiff is again having another such approval for a period of two years commencing from 1.1.2003 and expiring with 31.12.2005. i have already found that neither in the patents act nor in the patents rules, there is any amended provision as to who must apply for the marketing approval in india when a patent claim is filed in india by the inventor. therefore, this court has to necessarily look into the drug and cosmetic rules alone to find out the person authorised to apply for such marketing approval .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... notice that section 68 has been amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. a comparison of the said section prior to the amendment and post amendment would shed some light on the controversy in the present appeals. for the purposes of comparison, section 68 pre and post amendment is extracted here in below: section 68 (pre amendment)section 68 (post amendment)68. assignments, etc. not to be valid unless in writing and registeredan assignment of a patent or of a share in a patent, a mortgage, license or the creation of any other interest or of a share in a patent, a mortgage, license or the creation of any other interest in a patent shall not be valid unless the same .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
..... . it was pointed in the written statement that in terms of the second proviso to section 11-a(7) of the patents act 1970, introduced by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (effective from 1st january, 2005), in case of patent applications filed under section 5 (2) [which concerns a claim for patent of an invention for a substance itself intended for use, or capable of being used, as medicine or drug] the rights of a patentee accrue only from the date of the grant of the patent. it was also pointed out that although a certificate was issued to the plaintiffs by the controller general of patents bearing patent no. 196774 dated 23rd february 2007, the pre-grant opposition was disposed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank - 527 U.S. 627 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK ETAL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 98-531. Argued April 20, 1999-Decided June 23, 1999 Mter the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Act) amended the patent laws to expressly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, respondent College Savings Bank filed a patent infringement suit against petitioner Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board (Florida Prepaid), a Florida state entity. When this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 , Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the Act was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to use its Article I powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity. College Savings countered that Congress had properly exercised its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... in the mailbox and was taken out for consideration when many changes had been made in the patents act, 1970, with effect from january 1, 2005, to make the patent law in the country compliant with the terms of an international agreement entered into by the government of india. following the international agreement, the patents act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act (patents act, 1970). between january 1, 1995 and january 1, 2005, the patents act, 1970, underwent wide ranging changes, but if we are asked to identify .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... in the mailbox and was taken out for consideration when many changes had been made in the patents act, 1970, with effect from january 1, 2005, to make the patent law in the country compliant with the terms of an international agreement entered into by the government of india. following the international agreement, the patents act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act (patents act, 1970). between january 1, 1995 and january 1, 2005, the patents act, 1970, underwent wide ranging changes, but if we are asked to identify .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... the respective parties.22 mr.grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 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 objects and reasons/notes on clauses would show that the sections have been ..... 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 the notes on clauses:"clause 23: this clause seeks to substitute sections 25 and 26 of the act. subsection (1) of the proposed new section 25 seeks to provide for making .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003MP49; [2004(1)JCR203(MP)]; 2002(4)MPHT463
Dipak Misra, J.1. The term 'Law' is applied and taken recourse to herald the incandescent attributes of civilisation with stupendous felicity and the advancement of society is conditioned by the appropriate legal evolution. Sometimes the law is conceived as 'jus naturale', at times as 'jus civile' and some other times it is equated with 'jus honorarium'. But the term 'jus' is always important. 'Jus' should never succumb to 'Joss'. That is why it has been said that the law is not the study of words alone but a penetration into the study of nature within and nature without which are projected through words that have the moving power of life. For that Simon pure reason William Shakespeare spoke : 'The Law hath not been dead, though it hath slept'. We have embarked upon the subject with the aforesaid prefatory note as our essay and venture is to find out whether by substitution of Section 100A of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code') the Legislature by taking recourse to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... to the priority date and even if that amendment had been allowed, it could not have saved the patent application. he submitted that it is not for the court to rewrite the time limits set out in the act and the rules.18. the above submissions have been considered. it is necessary to examine the scheme of section 11-b of the act as amended by the patents (amendment) act 2005 and the corresponding rule 24-b of the rules as amended by the patents (amendment) rules 2006 which read as under ..... : "11-b request for examination: (1) no application for a patent shall be examined unless the applicant or any other interested person makes a request .....
Tag this Judgment!