Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Page 8 of about 1,464 results (0.199 seconds)

John George Vs. Stewards Association in India

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2007Ker57; 2006(4)KLT405

..... . section 100-a mentioned above was substituted by section 10 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999, which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. it reads thus:100-a. no further appeal in certain cases.- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any ..... in the code of civil procedure by section 38 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976 which came into force with effect from 1.2.1977. the same reads as follows:100-a. no further appeal in certain cases.-- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any other instrument having the force of law or .....

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

..... article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. for petitioner : mr.sp.chockalingam, party-in-person for ..... the constitution of india, seeking an order in the nature of writ of declaration, to declare the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patent act, 1970 by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.2. the petitioner, who appeared party-in-person ..... , as unconstitutional. however, the relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.52. hence, to meet the ends of justice, .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court : Trademark

..... applicant fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this appication was filed in india on my 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /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. cancer patients aid association., india, on september 26, 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 .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the p-isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this application was filed in india on july 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /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. natco pharma ltd., india, on may 26, 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 .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited

Court : Trademark

..... /mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition tinder section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. hetero drugs ltd., india, on august 22, 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 ..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for ..... 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. lakshmi kumaran & sridharan, new delhi on behalf of m/s.ranbaxy laboratories ltd., india on may 26 .....

Jenkins Vs. Georgia

Court : US Supreme Court

..... review of appellant's assertion that his exhibition of the film was protected by the first and fourteenth amendments. even though questions of appeal to the "prurient interest" or of patent offensiveness are "essentially questions of fact," it would be a serious misreading of miller to conclude ..... misreading of miller to conclude that juries have unbridled discretion in determining what is 'patently offensive.' not only did we there say that" "the first amendment values applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent ..... acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated," and "representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals." ibid. while this did not purport to be an exhaustive catalog of what juries might find patently offensive, it was certainly intended to fix substantive constitutional limitations, deriving from the first amendment .....

Kamal V.M. AllaudIn and Etc. Etc. Vs. Raja Shaikh and Etc. Etc.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1990Bom299

..... the legislature did not intend to include the high court within the meaning of the district court undersections 7 and 8 of the family courts act. this submission finds support from thebombay high court letters patent(amendment) act, 1948 (act no. xli of1948) which came into force on 4th may 1948.31. lastly, mrs. anusuya dutt, who, besides being an advocate, has also been actively ..... madras high court in the aforesaid ruling.63. it is common ground before me that the letters patent could be amended by the legislature. for that matter reference may be made to bombay act xli of 1948 viz., the bombay high court letters patent (amendment) act, 1948 which amended the letters patent. likewise, the matrimonial jurisdiction which the high court was exercising whether under cl. 35 or clause .....

Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aia Engineering Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 155(2008)DLT73; 2009(39)PTC212(Del)

..... products containing the same that infringe one or more asserted claims of the united states reissue patent no. 39,998; iii. issue permanent cease and desist orders pursuant to section 337(f) of the tariff act of 1930, as amended, prohibiting any respondent or its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or assigns, from marketing, demonstrating, ..... ) (india tv) independent news service pvt. ltd v. india broadcast live llc and ors. b) ppn power generating company limited v. ppn (mauritius) company and ors 2005 (3) arb. lt 354 (mad) c) modi entertainment network and anr v. w.s.g. cricket pvt. ltd : [2003]1scr480 d) airbus industry gie v ..... slovakia, south africa, south korea, turkey, ukraine and united states.31. on 12th december 2005 the appellant no. 2 signed licence agreement with appellant no. 1 to manufacture, sell etc the products using the technology covered under patent no. 197257.32. according to the appellants, the respondent without authority andunauthorisedly started manufacturing and .....

Jet Airways (India) Limited, a Co. and ors Vs. Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, ...

Court : Mumbai

..... section 39 (2) against a decision given by a learned single judge under section 39(1). in respect of the jurisdiction under letters patent the court observed that since arbitration act was a consolidating and amending act relating to arbitration it must be construed without any assumption that it was not intended to alter the law relating to appeals. the court ..... dispute arose between the vendors and the purchaser on account of a notice of demand dated 23 august 2007 issued under section 156 of the income tax act, 1961 for the assessment year 2004-2005 for a sum of rs. 444.5 crores. (h) on the backdrop of the above facts, the proceedings were initiated in this court. we ..... direction to sahara to forthwith pay/reimburse to jet an amount of rs.821/- crores, being the tax liability incurred/suffered in respect of assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. (v) chamber summons no. 729 of 2009 was filed by jet on 29 april 2009 in execution application no. 161 of 2009 for satisfaction being recorded on .....